The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the criminal conspiracy and kidnapping provisions under the Indian Penal Code, and the reliance on evidence such as telephone conversations to establish the involvement of the accused.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

These four appeals by Puran @ Shankar, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Reshma, arise out of a common judgment dated 3rd April, 2012 by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 343, 364A, 365 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC, for short). The appellants have also been convicted under Section 120B IPC. By order of sentence dated 11th April, 2012, they have been sentenced as under:

(1) Section 343IPCSimple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of the payment of fine, each appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2) Section 364A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two years.

(3) Section 365 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

(4) Section 120B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable.

2. The prosecution version which has been accepted by the Trial Court is that Chirag @ Chinky aged about 3½ years was kidnapped/abducted for ransom, from the guardianship of his father Pankaj Jain, pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by the appellants. He was confined in village Sikanderpur, Distt. Mainpuri, U.P. before he was rescued by the police. There was a threat to Chirag’s life, and Pankaj Jain, Chirag @ Chinky’s father, were threatened that if ransom was not paid, Chirag would be physically harmed.

3. We record that Mohd. Imran was prosecuted as co-conspirator but he has absconded and has been declared a proclaimed offender. Hari Om was convicted by the same judgment. Subsequently he was declared to be a juvenile on the date of the offence. His conviction and sentence was set aside and his case was transferred for adjudication to the Juvenile Justice Board.

KIDNAPPING OF CHIRAG @ CHINKY

4. Pankaj Jain, father of Chirag has deposed as PW-1. He has averred that on 20th March, 2007 at about 7.30 PM, his son Chirag was weeping, therefore, he sent him with his employee Akash (PW-8) to market. Akash (PW-8) was given Rs.10/- to get toffees for Chirag. Akash returned within ten minutes and told him that on the way an unknown person came and asked him to purchase pani puri for Rs 10/-, as this was ordered by PW-1 for a person sitting with him. On this Akash had handed over Chirag to the said person in order to purchase the pani puri and get back. Akash returned and was questioned. Since child had not returned home, PW1 went to market to search for Chirag but he could not be located. Neither was the unknown person who had approached Akash traceable. PW1 called the police control room and the police reached within 10 minutes. Local police also came at the residence of PW1. The same day, at about 9.00 P.M., PW-1 received a telephone call that Chirag had been taken out of Delhi and Rs.70,00,000/- should be paid as ransom for his release. The said call was received on PW-1’s mobile no. 9213285013, when he was at the police station. Police noted down the said number from which the call was received. The caller had stated that he would make another telephone call on the next day. The complaint made by PW1 was marked as Ex. PW1/A. He was informed that the ransom call was made from a number located at Bhopura, Ghaziabad. Another call from the abductor was received on the next day. PW1 was asked to arrange money and the caller informed him that he would again call him on the following day. PW1 has deposed about several calls made by the abductor, the threats and the money demanded for releasing Chirag. PW-1 was asked whether he had arranged for the money upon which PW1 had replied that he was making necessary arrangements. Abductor informed him that he had come to know of the police r