The prosecution must prove all elements of the crime, including ransom demand and victim's age, to sustain a conviction under Section 364A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

M. Choudhury, J.

Taking exception to a Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni in Sessions Case no. 291[B]/2018 [old Sessions Case no. 81[B]/2010], the three appellants, namely, [i] Sanjay Das; [ii] Dipankar Mallick; and [iii] Ram Prasad Biswas; [hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused-appellants’, at places, for easy reference] have preferred the present criminal appeal under Section 374[2], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] to assail the same. By the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2019, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni [hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’, for short] has convicted the three accused-appellants for the offence under Section 364A, Indian Penal Code [IPC] read with Section 34, IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 3 [three] months each. It has been ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellants shall be set-off against the sentence of imprisonment.

2. The case, Sessions Case no. 291[B]/2018 arose out of G.R. Case no. 180/2010 and Bijni Police Station Case no. 120/2010. The First Information Report [FIR] on the basis of which the case, Bijni Police Station Case no. 120/2010 stood registered, was submitted by one Sri Dulal Nayak as the informant on 13.05.2010. In the said First Information Report [FIR], five persons viz. [i] Sanjay Das; [ii] Dipankar Mallick; [iii] Ram Prasad Biswas; [iv] Mahadev Das; and [v] Tapash Mallick [Dabla] were named as accused.

3. In the Written FIR lodged on 13.05.2010, it was inter alia mentioned by the informant that when his minor son, Amit Nayak, aged about 15 years, went missing since 10-00 a.m. on 09.05.2010 [Sunday], he lodged one ejahar at Bijni Police Station on 10.05.2010 [Monday]. The informant further mentioned that at around 07-50 p.m. on 10.05.2010, some unknown persons called him using a mobile phone no. 9613635121 and demanded Rupees One Crore for release of his son. The informant further stated that he was given a threat that in the event of his failure to pay the amount of Rupees One Crore, they would send his son’s deadbody to his house. He further stated that after he informed about the said incident to Bijni Police Station, the Police carried out an investigation into the matter and recovered his son from the house of the accused person, Ram Prasad Biswas where his son was allegedly kept confined by the accused persons. The informant mentioned that the accused persons, named in the FIR, were also found in that house. By lodging the FIR before the Officer In-Charge, Bijni Police Station, the informant requested to give the custody of his recovered minor son to him and to take necessary action against the accused persons by investigating into the matter. One Darbesh Ali was the Scribe of the FIR and Darbesh Ali wrote therein that the FIR was written as per the version of the informant and after the contents of the FIR was read over to the informant and when the informant stated that the FIR had been written as per his version, he subscribed his signature therein.

4. On receipt of the afore-mentioned FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Bijni Police Station registered the same as Bijni Police Station Case no. 120/2010 on 13.05.2010 for the offence under Section 364A, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and entrusted the investigation to one Sonmoni Saikia, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Bijni Police Station.

5. The Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case, during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, CrPC. The I.O. also got the statements of [i] Dulal Nayak, the informant; [ii] Amit Nayak, the alleged victim; and [iii] Narayan Sarkar; recorded under Section 164, CrPC. In the course of investigation, the I.O. ma