Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A requires proof of abduction and threats of death or harm, which was established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

1. Since all the appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as such they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2016 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2010, by which the appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 364A and in default of payment of fine directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

3. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case, as per written report of informant, which reads as under:

4. On 21.05.2010, Subham Choudhary @ Rahul aged about 11 years went to attend tuition at Street 6 of Sector-II/C, Bokaro, who was to return at 10.30 a.m. after tuition but he did not return. Then his father, the informant of the case, namely, Rajesh Prasad submitted a written report to the Officer-in-charge, B.S. City Police Station stating that Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of Radha Kishore Singh resident of Qr. No. 2-134, Sector –II/A has kidnapped his son. The informant has made the allegation that said Santosh Kumar Singh was earlier his neighbor who is an anti-social element and at about 2.30 pm he received a phone call on his mobile number from the Mobile No. 9771168356 through which the caller said that his son, Rahul, was in his custody. Thereafter, at 3.00 pm they asked to arrange Rs. 8 lakhs till 5 am of the next day and threatened that if the information is given to the police party, they shall lose Rahul Kumar. The informant believing that Santosh Kumar Singh and his friends have kidnapped his son for ransom submitted a written report, which was registered as B.S. City P.S. Case No. 182 of 2010 under Sections 364A/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against Santosh Kumar Singh and his unknown friends.

5. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against Santosh Kumar Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal(DB)-1051 of 2016, Om Nath Dixit @ Sakun Dixit, Santosh Paswan (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) 889 of 2016) , Tamana @ Tanu under Section 364A/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , upon which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 31.08.2010 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2010 and again committed the case of appellant Nitish Vatsh (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) 928 of 2016) separately on 7th December, 2010 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 465 of 2010. However, later on both the trial amalgamated and all the accused persons of both the cases were tried together.

6. After appearance of accused persons, the charge under Section 364A/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, namely, Santosh Kumar Singh, Om Nath Dixit @ Sakun Dixit, Tamana @ Tanu, Santosh Paswan and Nitish Vatsh and read over an