Point of Law: Interpretation of the Constitution cannot be frozen by its original understanding that it must evolve with the felt necessities of time, to meet the aspirations and challenges of the present and future. By the passage of time, evolution of techniques, change in life style and personal choices recognized by the Rule of Law, appropriate modifications/changes/additions/alterations need to be made in Statutes, Rules and the forms prescribed thereunder.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

Abduction, dacoity, demand for ransom and eventual rescue by the police is the prosecution case, with a few country bombs thrown in for effect; every spicy ingredient; barring a few, to make a movie. The accused cry foul, of a case foisted by a senior police official to favour a relative who owns a construction company. The accused, numbering seven, have been convicted and sentenced with life under Section 364A IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- & Rs. 5,000/- respectively, with default sentences. The appellants, except one (A6), have been incarcerated for the last five years.

2. The prosecution case is that PW1 employed as a driver in a construction company of which PW3 is the Manager, while transporting a load of sand for the company, was waylaid, abducted for ransom and threatened to be dismembered if the ransom demands were not met. When he was in confinement, pursuant to the abduction, PW1 was also thieved of an amount of Rs.1000/-, a mobile phone and an ATM Card; which in the context of the number of assailants involved takes the character of dacoity. On being informed by PW3 about the abduction and the ransom demand, the police set up a ploy, of PW3 delivering the ransom amount and accompanied him, on the sly. At the reconnaissance spot, PW3 panicked and tried to drive away when the captors of PW1 tried to summon him back. The police swung into action and the perpetrators of the crime attempted to make a getaway by exploding a few country bombs. In the melee, PW1 escaped and A5 was captured. On the confession made by A5, the others were rounded up. The investigation was completed, the final report filed and the accused stood trial. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses and marked twenty-eight documents. The defence marked four contradictions. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as noticed above.

3. Learned Counsel Lavaraj M.G. argues on behalf of A1, A2 and A5. It is pointed out that there is no specific allegation against any of the accused. The evidence of PW1 is vague and there is no identification of the accused. Though PW1 said that he was waylaid by 3-4 people, he does not identify those from among the seven accused. The confession of A1 under Section 27, is concerning the ATM Card and mobile and not the autorickshaw. The alleged items which were concealed having not been recovered, the seizure of the autorickshaw does not offer any connection with the crime. PW1 speaks of A2 having thieved an ATM Card and mobile phone, which were not recovered. PW1 does not at all speak of A5 and though he is said to have been arrested in the alleged melee, there is nothing to show that A5 was a member of the gang.

4. The other learned Counsel adopts the above arguments and adds a few. Sri. D. Ajith Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for A3 and A6, would assert that there is no material evidence proffered before Court. Paragraph 43 is pointed out, where the trial Court has relied on the alleged confession made by A5 to the investigator, to book all the other accused, which confession is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. Sri. V. Shankar, appearing for A4 reiterates that the role of each of the accused is not specified and neither is the identity established nor the overt acts pinned on any of the accused arrayed. In Vayalali Girishan v. State of Kerala 2016 KHC 204 a Division Bench has delineated on how identification has to be carried out in a trial Court; which procedure was not followed here. An unreported decision of a learned Single Judge in Crl.A.1403 of 2009 Francis @ Franchi v. State of Kerala dated 01.10.2010 is also relied on for the very same purpose. Sheik Ahamed v. State of Telangana 2021 SCC OnLine SC 436 is relied on to contend that to attract Section 364A the person abducted should speak of the apprehension of death or hurt, having been caused. Shajin S.Hameed, arguing for A7 specifically points to Ex