IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping for ransom – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where prosecution has failed to prove conditions together as envisaged under Section 364-A, IPC.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2015, for the offence under Section 364A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short “IPC”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1051 of 2009 confirming the judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barh, in Sessions Trial No. 1046 of 2004, the present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-and in case of default, further sentence of three months.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, on 24.10.2002 at about 8.30 p.m., three unknown accused persons armed with deadly weapons stormed into the house of Rajendra Kumar (the informant, PW-13) and committed loot taking away some cash and golden ornaments. In the said incident, they also tied the informant and his wife Suma Kumari (PW-15) and kidnapped their elder child namely Unnat Raj (PW-12), aged eight years with a threat to kill the boy in case the informant raised any hue and cry or inform the police. As alleged, the accused persons also left a ransom note demanding Rs. 6 lacs to be delivered near Rampur Dumra station by 30.10.2002, failing which, the boy would be killed.

3. It is further the case of prosecution that while leaving, the accused persons confined the informant and his wife in separate rooms bolting the doors from outside. The informant somehow freed himself and rushed to the roof, wherefrom he saw the accused persons under the streetlight fleeing away with the child. On the said basis, FIR was lodged and during course of investigation, present appellant along with 6 other accused persons namely Sudhir Mahto, Diwakar Yadav, Dayanand Mahto, Pramod Kumar, Dhurba Yadav and Awdhesh Yadav @ Gama Yadav were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 364A/395/120(B)/34 of IPC. The trial was conducted and present appellant along with one Sudhir Mahto was convicted for offence under Section 364A of IPC, whereas, acquitted for other offences.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses to answer whether the child was illegally taken away from lawful guardianship or not. The Trial Court largely relied on the testimony of Rajendra Kumar (PW-13, informant/father of the child), Suma Kumari (PW-15, mother of the child) and Unnat Raj (PW-12, kidnapped child) alongside documentary evidence brought on record and held that the child was illegally taken away from the lawful guardianship of the parents. All the three witnesses were consistent qua the incident of kidnapping on the date of incident. So far as question as to who were involved in the alleged occurrence, the Trial Court primarily considered the testimony of Krishna Chandra (PW-11, Investigating officer), who deposed that the ransom demanded from the parents of the child, had to be handed over to the kidnappers at the nearby temple at Barahiya railway station by a man clad in white shirt, full pant and a gamchha who was to travel by Vikramshila train. Thereafter, the trap was set and when three miscreants came to collect the ransom, one person namely Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Mahto was nabbed, while the other two escaped.

5. On interrogation, Pramod Kumar in his confessional statement disclosed the names of present appellant, Nandan Mahto, Md. Ajam, Dewakar Yadav, Dhurba Yadav and Vikas Das being involved in the alleged crime. He further disclosed that the boy is with Gauri Mahto (present appellant) and if raid is conducted, the boy may be recovered. Accordingly, a raid was conducted on