Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jagdish Singh, PW 5, the complainant, made a statement at 2.30 P.M., on 13.3.2002 at Police Station, Tohana, that his sons Labh Singh and Jagdev Singh, aged 18 and 16 years, respectively, and their cousin Sanjay son of Gurdeep Singh, student of class-I, aged 7-8 years, study in Sharda Montessory School in classes 10th and 7th, respectively. On 13.3.2002 Sanjay returned from school at 2.30 P.M., and told him that, two persons arrived in the school at about 10.30 A.M., and have taken away Johny @ Jagdev Singh, on a scooter. Jagdish Singh and his brother Gurdeep Singh rushed to the school and enquired from the teacher Jaswinder Kaur and Sulakshna, a Clerk, about the whereabouts of Johny @ Jagdev Singh. The teachers informed them that at about 10.30 A.M., two unknown persons came to the school. One of them, remained standing near a scooter, parked in the street, whereas the other one entered the school and made a request that as Labh Singh's father has suffered injuries, Labh Singh has been called back home. She allowed Johny @ Jagdev Singh to leave with this person. Jagdish Singh informed the police that he apprehended that his son has been kidnapped with an intention to kill him. The statement led to the registration of an FIR No. 71 dated 13.3.2002 at Police station City Tohana, under sections 364, 364-A, 342, 323 and 506/34 IPC.

PW 6 Sulakshna, has deposed that on 13.3.2002, at about 10.30 A.M. Jaswinder Kaur, Math and SS teacher, informed her that some one has come to take Johny @ Jagdev Singh home. On enquiry from this person, she was informed that as Johnny's father has met with an accident and suffered a head injury, Johny has to be taken home. She has also deposed that she asked him where he would take Johny. This person replied that Johny's father is being transported to hospital in a trolley and he has to take Johny upto the railway crossing gate. She telephoned at Johny's house but no one answered her call. She called Johny @ Jagdev Singh and allowed him to go with this person. She noticed that another person was standing outside the school, with a scooter. Ms. Sulakshna identified Jagtar Singh as the same person who entered the school and took Johny out of the school. In her detailed cross-examination, the defence has failed to elicit any response that would discredit her deposition. Therefore, the other teacher, Jaswinder Kaur, has not been examined. PW 7 Johny @ Jagdev Singh has deposed that he was present in the school when Ram Kumar, a driver of the school bus, asked him to go to the room of Sulakshna, Secretary of the school. He entered the room and saw a person standing with Sulakshna and Jaswinder Kaur. The teachers told him that this person has come to take him to home as his father has suffered a head injury. Johny identified the person, who entered the school as the person wearing a sweater and a black cap, i.e, Jagtar Singh @ Tori, appellant. He has also deposed that when they came out of the school, he saw Dev Raj, standing near the scooter. He was made to sit between the two, on the scooter and driven to Ratia road. After they travelled a kilometer, he realised that he has been kidnapped and raised an alarm. Dev Raj gagged his mouth and covered him with a blanket. He was taken to a field near a tubewell room. Three other persons Satyawan, Jagga and Suresh were present. Johny @ Jagdev Singh, identified them in the court. He further deposed that he was taken to a room meant for storing fodder and kept there till mid night. After he was given meals, he was shifted to a tubewell room and kept there. Satyawan remained on guard. The accused dug a pit in the fodder room and at about 2.30 A.M., brought him back to the fodder room and asked him to get into the pit. As he started crying, accused Satyawan, Jagga and Suresh pushed him into the pit and stated that he would only be released if his father pays Rs.10 lac. He has further deposed that he asked the appellants to let him talk to his father as his father will pay the money, but the appellants stated that they alone would talk to his father. Despite repeated requests, he was not allowed to come out of the pit and was threatened. He was rescued on the next day at about 1/1.15 P.M. and the appellants were arrested at the spot. He has deposed that he became aware of the names of the appellants as they were calling out each other by these names. This witness was subjected about a detailed cross-examination, but remained firm while deposing about the essentials of his kidnapping; his confinement in a pit, the identity of the appellants; and all other relevant facts. The depositions of these witnesses, in our considered opinion are sufficient to establish that the appellants kidnapped Johny @ Jagdev Singh and confined him, as alleged by the prosecution.

The kidnapping finds further corroboration from the statement of Jagdish Singh, father of Johny @ Jagdev Singh, PW 5, Gurdeep Singh son of Puran Singh, brother of Jagdish Singh, PW 9, Dharam Chand, Inspector, PW 10, Shri Dalbir Singh, DSP, Crime Branch, Madhuban, Karnal, PW 11, who have deposed in unison that a secret informer gave information that the appellants have confined Johny @ Jagdev Singh at the tubewell of Ram Kumar Saini, at Jamalpur road. The informer pointed out the tubewell and as they approached the tubewell, they heard some one saying that if Johny's father gives them a sum of Rs.10 lac, they will release him, otherwise, they will kill him. The police surrounded the tubewell, apprehended the appellants and recovered Johny @ Jagdev Singh, from a pit in the fodder room. The appellants were arrested at the spot and the place of occurrence was photographed. These witnesses have identified the appellants as the persons who were arrested from the tubewell. The depositions of these witnesses clearly establish that Johny was kidnapped and confined by he appellants in a pit. The fact that the child was taken from the school on a pretext that his father had suffered a head injury, was confined in a fodder room, thereafter in the tubewell room and then pushed into a pit, to prevent him from escaping; the recovery of Johny from the pit, arrest of the appellants from the spot and their identification in the court by prosecution witnesses, in our considered opinion, establish the offence of kidnapping in its entirety The only point that remains is whether the prosecution has been able to establish whether an offence was committed under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court has convicted the appellants under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.

A detailed perusal of the deposition of prosecution witnesses reveals that, apart from Johny @ Jagdev Singh, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed about a demand for ransom. PW 5 Jagdish Singh, father of the child, and other witnesses, have admitted that they did not receive any telephone call or message in any form or manner demanding ransom. However, in the depositions of witnesses, who were present at the time of the police raid which led to the recovery of the child, a reference appears as to a demand for ransom. PW5 Jagdish Singh, PW9 Gurdeep Singh, brother of the complainant, PW 10 Dharam Chand and PW 11 Dalbir Singh, DSP, have deposed that as they approached the tubewell where the kidnapped boy was confined, they over heard the appellants conversing that in case ransom of Rs.10 lac is not paid, they would kill Johny @ Jagdev Singh. We have perused these statements and have no hesitation in holding that this part of the statement is a crude attempt, by the prosecution to foist a demand of ransom and a threat to cause death so as to place the offence under sections 364 or 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution witnesses have not identified the appellants who spoke these words and even otherwise, their depositions on this alleged demand for ransom, do not inspire confidence. The deposition of the kidnapped child Johny @ Jagdev Singh, however, does make a reference to a ransom as he has deposed that he was threatened by the appellants that they would release him only if his father pays Rs.10 lac whereupon, he asked the appellants to let him talk to his father as his father would pay the money. The reference to a ransom, in the statement made to Johny @ Jagdev Singh, in our considered opinion, is sufficient to raise an inference that the appellant kidnapped the child for ransom. The question that remains is whether the prosecution has established the other ingredients of section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, namely, threat to kill or cause hurt or by conduct, give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the kidnapped persons would be put to death or hurt.