( 1 ) NETRA Pal and Harish Chand were booked under Section 363/364-A/365 indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) by Police Station Vivek Vihar vide FIR No. 227/94. Harish chand since could not be traced, therefore, was declared proclaimed offender. However, trial was conducted against this appellant. After the conclusion of the case the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Netra Pal for offence of kidnapping for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 300. 00. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 364-A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 300. 00. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Also convicted under Section 365 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 300. 00. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences have to run concurrently.

( 2 ) MR. SAURABH Banerjee, amicuscuriae for the appellant, at the outset said that so far as case of prosecution against the appellant under Section 363 and 365 Indian Penal Code is concerned he will not be addressing the Court. Therefore, this appeal survives only for offence under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code and that is what was indicated by mr. Saurabh Banerjee, counsel for the appellant right from the beginning. He restricted his arguments in this appeal only against the conviction and sentence passed under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) THE question raised by Mr. Saurabh Banerjee in this appeal is; Whether the letter Ex. P-1 which was recovered from the possession of the appellant would constitute a demand "to pay ransom" as stipulated under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Saurabh Banerjee it would be expedient to go through the facts of this case. Briefly stated the prosecution case as set up was that appellant was known from before to master Tanu John, aged about six years, son of Mr. Rishi John, Public Witness-1. Appellant used to go to their house in Rickshaw and the boy had been known to the appellant from before. On 12/08/1994 when Rishi Johri came back from work his wife told him that appellant Netra Pal had come and that their son Tanu along with other children had gone for joy ride in his Rickshaw. Appellant had dropped other children from his rickshaw, but he took away Tanu on the pretext that he would give him more joy rides. Mrs. Johri under the impression that after some time appellant would bring back Tanu therefore did not report the matter. But when after a long time Tanu was not brought back she reported the matter to her husband who in turn tried to trace out the child as well as the appellant. But both were not traceable hence matter was reported to the police. Police after recording of the kidnapping case deputed raiding party to the village of the appellant. On reaching Village Bilgari, P. S. Jatipur, Distt. Shahjahanpur, U. P. they found Netra Pal the appellant present there and the child was in his possession. Netra Pal, the appellant and the child Tanu were identified by Anil Johri uncle of Master Tanu. Mr. Aniljohriwasalsoa member of the raiding party. Accused was apprehended and arrested at his village on 15. 8. 94. He made a disclosure statement which was recorded as Ex. Public Witness-2/b. From the search of the accused a letter Ex. P-1 was recovered which was purported to be a letter asking for ransom of Rs. 50,000. 00. This appellant and the child Tanu along with raiding party came to Delhi. After completion ofi investigation challan was filed.

( 5 ) ADMITTED facts of the case are that Master Tanu Johri was kidnapped by the accused/ appellant herein. He was kidnapped from the lawful custody and guardianship of his mother on the pre