2011 Supreme(SC) 1122

2011 (8) Supreme 433
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J.Chelameswar, JJ
Akram Khan — Appellant(s)
versus
State of West Bengal — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1321 of 2011)
Decided on : 5-12-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
The punishment must fit the crime. It is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. As a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate befitting the crime.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 ¯ Sections 364A and 120B ¯ Kidnapping of a minor boy (PW2) studying in Class IV by eight accused persons for ransom ¯ (PW3) father of the kidnapped boy repeatedly receiving telephone calls demanding ransom, Rs. 10 lacs which was reduced to three lacs ¯ Police officials conducting raid and arresting eight accused persons and recovering the kidnapped child¯ All the eight accused persons facing trial before Additional Sessions Judge who sentenced seven accused persons for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- each for offence under Section 364A, and one year RI and fine of Rs. 3000/- each for offence under Section 120B IPC, and acquitted one accused¯ All the seven accused persons filing appeal before High Court ¯ High Court acquitting three accused persons giving them benefit of doubt and affirming conviction of remaining four accused persons including the appellant ¯ Only appellant filing appeal before the Supreme Court ¯ Supreme Court finding that the case under Sections 364A IPC and Section 120B was proved beyond doubt, conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded was proper ¯ Appeal dismissed.

        (b) Indian Penal Code, Section 364A ¯ To pay a ransom, in the ordinary sense means to pay the price or demand for ransom ¯ This would show that the demand has to be communicated. (Para 16)

        (c) Indian Penal Code, Section 364-A ¯ Punishment ¯ Section 364A stipulates that if the prosecution establishes beyond doubt that the kidnapping was for ransom, the sentence provided in this Section is death or imprisonment for life and also be liable to fine ¯ Kidnapping for ransom is a crime which calls for a deterrent punishment, irrespective of the fact that kidnapping had not resulted in death of the victim ¯ In those cases whoever kidnaps or abducts young children for ransom, no leniency be shown in awarding sentence, on the other hand, it must be dealt with in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on the courts as well ¯ In the present case, the punishment of life imprisonment was held proper and did not warrant interference. (Para 22)

        (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 118 ¯ Child witness ¯ Where the witness is a child witness, the Court has to satisfy that he is capable of understanding the events ¯ In the instant case the kidnapped boy was a student of Class IV at the relevant time , the trial Judge, after satisfying his capacity to depose, accepted his evidence to the extent that he was kidnapped and detained in a house and another person-the present appellant, made telephone calls demanding ransom and also threatened PW-2 on various occasions ¯ Evidence of child witness believed.

       Facts of the case

        (1) In the afternoon of 17.03.2000, which was a Bakrid day, a minor boy named Vicky Prasad Rajak (PW-2) was found missing. Mahendra Prasad Rajak (PW-3)-father of the boy (the Complainant) reported the matter at the Police Station. Later on, the boy’s father received telephone calls from unknown persons demanding ransom of Rs.10 lakhs. On 21.03.2000, again the complainant received a call where the caller told him that he had the money because of the sale of the shop, however, the ransom demanded was reduced to Rs. 7 lakhs. The caller also threatened him that if the ransom is not paid, his son would not remain alive. There were further telephone calls on other dates and, ultimately, on 01.04.2000, the ransom was reduced by the caller to Rs. 3 lakhs. Later as directed by the telephone callers, the complainant along with ransom money went to different places but no body met the complainant Again on 13.04.2000, the complainant received a message from the caller to come at Ghoga Railway Station. When they went there, none came. At night, a raid was conducted by the Calcutta Police along with the help of Bihar Police and they arrested five accused persons, namely, Md. Kalim @ Kalu, Akram Khan, Afsal Khan @ Fazo, Md. Javed and Md. Mehtab from different places in Bhagalpur and the kidnapped boy was rescued from the house of Mehatab. Later, one of the associates of the accused persons, namely, Md. Zakir Khan was arrested in Calcutta. It was revealed that Zakir Khan was an ex-employee of the father of the kidnapped boy in his tailoring shop which he had sold. Two more associates, Nazamul Khan and Md. Dilshad, who took part in the commission of offence, were also arrested. All he eight accused persons faced trial and the Additional Sessions Judge sentenced seven accused persons to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for commission of offence under Section 364A IPC and further imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for commission of offence under Section 120B IPC and both sentences were to run concurrently. However, Md. Nazamul Khan, one of the accused was acquitted as not found guilty.

        Against the said judgment, all the seven accused persons including the appellant herein filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta. By the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2010, the High Court acquitted Md. Javed, Md. Dilshad and Md. Mehtab giving them the benefit of doubt and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Akram Khan-appellant herein, Afzal Khan @ Fazo, Md. Zakir Khan and Md. Kalim @ Kalu. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, Akram Khan-appellant herein alone has filed this appeal by way of special leave before the Supreme Court.

       Findings

        Case against the accused persons stands proved. Evidence of the four witnesses PW2, PW3. PW 6 and PW7 was found reliable. Conviction and sentence was proper.