Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Section 13 in The M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 [Entire Act]
Malleshi vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2004
(13) In this connection, the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of "Malleshi Vs. State of
Karnataka" [ AIR 2004 SC 4865] in which it is laid
that there are mainly three ingredients to prove the
prosecution's case for offence under Section 364-A of
IPC. First is that the accused must have kidnapped,
abducted or detained by any person. Secondly, he must
have kept by such person in custody or detention and
third, kidnapping, abduction or detention must have been
for ransom. To pay ransom in the manner since means to
pay the price or demand for ransom this would show that
the demand has to be communicated. However, it is not
laid by the Apex Court that if object of abduction is
otherwise proved then demand should be proved
specifically.
Akram Khan vs State Of West Bengal on 5 December, 2011
Also in the case of ''Akram Khan vs. State
of West Bengal" [AIR 2012 SC 308] it is laid that if it
is established that the offender after kidnapping a person
keeps the said person in detention or threatens to cause
death or hurt in order to pay ransom, undoubtedly
Section 364-A of IPC is attracted.
The M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981
1