Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Malleshi vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2004
(2) He must have kept such person under custody or
detention; and
(3) Kidnapping, abduction or detention must have been for
ransom. [see also Malleshi v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 8
SCC 95]
Section 34 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 May, 2007
The term ransom
Crl.A.853/2012 Page 5 of 8
was examined in Suman Sood v State of Rajasthan 2007 (5) SCC 634,
wherein it has been held:
Vinod vs State Of Haryana on 24 January, 2008
(see also Vinod v State of Haryana 2008 (2) SCC 246 and
P. Liaquat Ali Khan v State of AP 2009 (12) SCC 707).
Shyam Babu & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2008
17. Similarly in Shyam Babu vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 418, it
was held as under:-
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Mahabir Prasad Verma vs Dr. Surinder Kaur on 7 April, 1982
6. Ram Lal (PW1) had deposed that, on 16th July, 1994, he and his
daughter had received ransom call demanding Rs.20,00,000/-, for the release
of Sukh Dayal. He searched for his brother Sukh Dayal (PW2) but without
success. Ultimately he filed a complaint with police (Ex. PW1/A), in the early
Crl.A.853/2012 Page 2 of 8
morning of 17th July, 1994. He had also handed over 7 audio cassettes (Ex.
PW1/1 to PW1/7) recording of conversation in which demand of ransom was
raised. He also visited police station on 20th July, 1994. At this stage, we
may notice that in the appeals preferred by Amar Mishra, Ravi, Rajender and
Mukesh, a Division Bench of this Court after examining the law and legal
position in Mahavir Prasad Verma v. Surinder Kaur, AIR 1982 SC 1043,
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157, Ziyauddin
Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, AIR 1975 SC 1788
and Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh AIR 1986 SC 3, has observed and held
that the pre-conditions essential for tape recordings to be admissible as
evidence, were not satisfied. Respectfully following the said judgment, we are
not inclined to take into account the tape recordings of the conversations.
However, this does not disturb or affect the statement made by PW-1
regarding the ransom calls, which were received, and kidnapping of Sukh
Dayal (PW2).