Back
2004(6) Supreme 609
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar, JJ.
Malleshi -Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1343 of 2002
Decided on 15-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Bimal Roy Jad, Advocate (A.C.).
For the Respondent : Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate.
Held : In the instant case as the factual position found by the trial court and the High Court goes to show, the object of abduction was for ransom. This was clearly conveyed to the victim PW-2. He was even conveyed the amount to be paid. It cannot be laid down as a strait-jacket formula that the demand for payments has to be made to a person who ultimately pays. By way of illustration it can be said that a rich business man is abducted. He is told that for his release his family members have to pay a certain amount of money; but money actually belongs to the person abducted. The 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. It has to be seen in such a case as to what was the object of kidnapping or abduction. The essence of abduction as noted above is causing to stay in isolation and demand for ransom. The demand in the present case has already been made by conveying it to the victim. (Para 15)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ), and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the trial court ). In appeal Karnataka High Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence. It is to be noticed that four persons faced trial. Appellant-accused for the sake of convenience is described as A-1 and the co-accused as A2 and A4. They were acquitted by the trial court.
2. Accusations which led to the trial of the accused persons are as follows :
Vijayabhasker, (PW 2) was a student of S.J.M. College, situated on Holalkere Road in Chitradurga, he was studying I year B.Sc., and was staying at Challakere in his Uncle s house. He used to come to Chitradurga to attend the college daily by bus. Jagadish (PW 3) was a classmate of PW 2 and resident of Challakere, both of them usually come together to Chitradurga from Challakere. On 25.11.1997 Vijayabhaskar, (PW 2), Jagadish (PW 3) and their friend Raghavendra, (PW 4) finished their practical classes and came out of the college at about 2-45 p.m. At that time, a person called PW 2 by taking his name, he turned and saw that person was wearing white shirt and pant. PW 2 went to him and was told by that person that he knew his father Hanumantha Rao, as he used to come to their village Chintarlapalli in Anantapur District, for Tamarind business. He enquired with PW 2 about the fees and other expenses stating that he wanted to admit his son. PW 2 told him that about Rs. 2,000/- will be the expenses in the college. A Trax Jeep was parked nearby. The said person took PW 2 towards the Trax jeep informing him that his son is there. PW 2 went there, he was asked to sit in the jeep. Three other persons also came and sat in the jeep. The person who took him to the jeep also sat by his side, there were two drivers in the jeep, they closed the doors of the jeep and it was driven towards Challakere on N.H. 4. They treated PW 2 well till they crossed Challakere gate. Thereafter he was threatened not to raise any voice, otherwise he will be murdered. After they crossed Challakere, they enquired from him about the phone number stating that they will ask his father to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to them for his release. PW 2 told them that such huge amount cannot be arranged and hardly they may get about Rs. 50,000/- by raising loan from others. They told him that their Boss wanted at least Rs. 2,00,000/-. On the way, they allowed him to meet the call of nature however some of them accompanied him. He was given water to drink. They stopped the vehicle near a village and the accused persons got down for buying cigarettes. The drivers in the jeep asked him to run away, and accordingly PW. 2 ran away, he came to know that the place was Byrapur village. He went and informed the villagers and got them near the jeep, they surrounded the said jeep, caught hold the accused persons, informed to the police, Molakalmurnu. They were all taken to the police station along with the said jeep. Later on PW 2 gave complaint as per Ex. P.2, which was registered. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Chitradurga Rural Police and then the charge sheet came to be filed. According to prosecution accused No. 1 Malleshi was the person who was in white shirt and pant, who abducted PW.2 from the college and accused No. 2 to 4 were the other three persons who were in the jeep during the course of the incident.
3. Trial Court analysed the evidence of PW 2 who was the main witness and whose abduction was alleged. PWs. 3 and 4 were also stated to have witnessed a part of the occurrence i.e. A1 calling the victim PW-2 and their going together towards the vehicle. Though PW 4 resiles from the statement made during investigation, his evidence corroborated that of PWs 2 and 3 to the extent that he had seen PW 2 going in the company of somebody towa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
