The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove the offence under Section 364A of the IPC, there must be evidence of threat to the kidnapped person's life or body.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. Present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.2009, whereby the appellant, Jamil Ahmed, had been held guilty by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’); and the order of sentence dated 12.2.2009 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Code and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of one year. Appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Code and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of four months.

2. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is that on 29.4.2006, Master Arvind Kumar, six year old son of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sahni, was kidnapped for ransom by a labourer, who had worked in the house of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sahni for about one and a half months, when the house was being renovated. The labourer was able to assess the financial position of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sahni and, thus, he decided to kidnap Master Arvind Kumar for ransom. On the fateful day i.e. 29.4.2006, Master Arvind Kumar, was kidnapped by the labourer and taken to Village Ujhani, District Badayun, U.P. As the parents could not find their child, the father, Shri Dinesh Kumar Sahni, lodged a report with the Police. Investigation was taken up by SI Rakesh Kumar. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the child, Master Arvind Kumar, was last seen with Jamil Ahmed by Champa Devi, who runs a provision store. Jamil Ahmed demanded a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs for release of the child by making a telephonic call from a mobile no.9319457257 on the mobile phone of Mr.Dinesh Kumar bearing no.9810691021. The call, which was made, was from Badayun, UP. The Police party reached Village Ujhani along with Mr.Dinesh Kumar Singh and others where Jamil Ahmed was overpowered, and Master Arvind Kumar was recovered at the instance of Jamil Ahmed from the house of Rukhsana, sister of Jamil Ahmed. The appellant was arrested and the child, Master Arvind Kumar, was recovered from the house of the sister of the appellant. Ms.Poonam Chaudhary, the then learned Magistrate, recorded the statement of Master Arvind Kumar, son of Mr.Dinesh Kumar Sahni, under Section 164 of the Code, exhibit PW-4/A. In the statement the child disclosed that one Mistri, who was working at his house, caught hold of him, took him away and told him to get Rs.5,000/-from his father and then he would leave him.

3. Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. No evidence was led in defence.

4. The conviction by the trial court of the appellant on the charge of kidnapping for ransom is primarily based on the evidence of the victim, PW-4, and duly supported by the evidence of PW-1, Smt.Champa Devi, who had last seen the victim along with the appellant; the evidence of the father of the child; Police officials including the investigation officer, who were members of the raiding party and present at the time of recovery of the child from the house of the sister of the appellant; and also PW-9, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who was running the PCO booth from where the call was made for demanding ransom; and also on the basis of the record of Reliance Communications, produced by PW-10, Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, Assistant Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication.

5. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the judgment of the trial court is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is not supported with any legally admitted principles of law. It is argued that there is no clinching or reasonable evid