Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Now coming to the last question as to whether the offence committed by the accused falls within the purview of Section 364-A of IPC. In this regard, it may be observed that Amolak Raj Chopra at the very inception vomitted out in the FIR that he had received a telephone call from the accused that they should be ready with a sum of Rs. 20 lacs and if they tried to inform the police, then they would kill the kidnapee. This initial version stands corroborated by Amolak Raj Chopra while appearing as PW-9. The kidnapee while appearing in the witness box as PW-4 also stated that accused demanded a sum of Rs. 20 lacs and threatened his parents to kill him. Again during cross-examination he has clarified that the accused had conveyed a demand of Rs. 20 lacs on mobile phone which was heard by him. Thus, unchallenged testimony of this witnesses is bound to be believed. The recoveries of the pistol from the accused Raghbir Singh, spring actuated knife from accused Dharmender Singh and recovery of car from accused Tarun Kumar go to establish that the accused armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house of Amolak Raj Chopra, kidnapped Anmol Mani Chopra, thereafter made a telephonic call on a mobile phone for placing a demand of Rs. 20 lacs as a ransom for releasing Anmol Mani Chopra. As such provisions of Section 364-A IPC are attracted.

20. It has been vehemently contended that Section 364-A IPC has been added in the Code in cases when ransom is demanded to compel the government or any foreign state or international or inter governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay ransom and it is not attracted in case the accused compelled an individual to release the person kidnapped on the condition of payment of ransom.

21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions. Before entering into the controversy, it will be appropriate to reproduce Section 364-A of IPC.

25. Still the aforesaid Section as well as Code could not meet the contingency when the offence of kidnapping for ransom was committed in order to compel any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization, therefore, in order to arrest the menace of kidnapping for ransom in order to compel the foreign State or international inter governmental organization and to widen further the scope of Section the words "any other person" already existing in Section 364-A prior to 1995 was substituted with words "any foreign State, international intergovernmental organization or any other person" by Act No. 24 of 1995 in Section 364-A IPC. The amended Section 364-A IPC as applicable w.e.f. 26.5.1995 is reproduced as under:

31. A reference has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to the authorities i.e. Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 369 and Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 474, wherein it was observed that offence under Section 364-A IPC is not made out against the appellants in the case got registered by a private individual. With due regard to both the judgments, we stand to differ with the same as no proper assistance has been rendered by the State as well as defence counsel in order to reach the right conclusion. Now coming to the other argument that for want of specific evidence regarding demand of ransom, the offence under Section 364-A IPC does not become complete. The same lacks merit. The factual position found by the trial Court leads us to observe that the object of abduction of Anmol Mani Chopra was for ransom. PW-9 Amolak Raj Chopra has specifically stated that he had received a telephonic call at his house vide which he was threatened to kill the kidnapee and ransom of Rs. 20 lacs was demanded. The kidnapee has also corroborated the fact that the accused were demanding Rs. 20 lacs for his release from his parents through a mobile phone. Thus, the evidence clearly reveals that demand was made from the parents of the kidnapee and kidnapee was also conveyed about the said demand. The Apex Court in Malleshi v. State of Karnataka case (supra) also observed that payment for release is made by the persons to whom the demand is made. The demand originally is made to the person abducted or kidnapped. After making the demand to the kidnapped or abducted person, merely because the demand could not be conveyed to some other person, as the accused is arrested in the meantime, does not take away the offence out of the purview of Section 364-A IPC. It has to be seen in such cases as to what was the object of kidnapping and abduction. The Apex Court while clarifying the demand of ransom, observed in the operative part of its judgment as under: