Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. However, as noted above, for the offence under Section 364-A IPC to be complete, kidnapping or abduction and illegal detention of the kidnapped/abducted is only a part ingredient. The key ingredient that distinguishes the offence under Section 364-A IPC from that of kidnapping; extortion and; kidnapping for murder, is the demand of a ransom under the threat to cause hurt or death or reasonable apprehension as to that or causing death or hurt - to extract the ransom. It is in this regard that the prosecution story waivers and serious doubts emerge that require consideration. In the first place, it was the own case of the key prosecution witness namely the first informant (PW-1) and the father of the victim (PW-3) that the personal clothes & slippers of the victim as also the ransom notes were not received by them, directly from any of the accused persons. On the contrary, they asserted that such personal belongings of the victim and the ransom notes were received by Shiv Mangal Sahu, and Budul Yadav. Also, it was the prosecution's own case that a ransom demand was also received telephonically on the mobile phone of the village 'Pradhan', namely Narpat Singh. Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 (father of the victim) further claimed to have spoken to the abductors and the victim on the mobile phone of Narpat Singh. However, for reasons not known to the Court, neither of the three persons, who allegedly received the ransom notes and on whose mobile phone demand for ransom was made, were ever produced as a witness to support that crucial aspect of the prosecution story. It is also not completely free from doubt how PW-1 could have proven the exhibits i.e. ransom notes and, clothes & slippers of the victim, when, according to his own statement, he had not received the same from the abductors/accused persons but the same were disclosed to have been received from Shiv Mangal Sahu and Budul Yadav. No effort whatsoever was made to establish that the ransom notes were in the handwriting of the accused persons. The child witness who was alleged to have been forced to write his name on those ransom notes did not identify his writing.

19. Then, as discussed above, a simple demand of ransom, even if accompanied with kidnapping, would not complete the ingredients of offence under Section 364-A IPC. The demand of ransom must be proven to have been made under threat or reasonable apprehension or actual hurt or death. Looked in this light, it is also relevant that there were no injuries or marks of any injury or torture found on the body of victim child, at the time of his recovery on 09.06.2005. He also did not make any statement to that effect. In his entire testimony, he did not bring out any allegation of any attempt made on his life or any threat to life having been made on him at the hands of the appellant or the other co-accused. In fact, he had described, in great detail, his uneventful journeys and stay at various places from 02.04.2005 up to the point of his recovery by the police. Not only this, there is a complete lack of any threat to life or hurt in that narration, in fact, it is completely uneventful except a stray statement that he (PW-2) had once been threatened while at an unspecified railway station. Thus, that narration also does not bring out any allegation of attempt to murder or threat to murder or any bodily injury caused to the victim to demand ransom.