IMPORTANT POINT
Supreme Court has wide power to alter charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. whilst not causing prejudice to accused.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 149 and 364A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 216 – Kidnapping of child for ransom – Common object – Conviction and sentence – It is necessary to prove not only that such kidnapping or abetment has taken place but that thereafter, accused threatened to cause death or hurt to such person or by his conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or cause hurt or death to such person – For proving ingredient of threat, intimidation of child victim, for the purpose of making him silent, cannot be enough – If sentence carrying a maximum sentence of death and a minimum sentence of life sentence has such a low evidentiary threshold, difference between punishments for kidnapping under Sections 363, 364 and 364A shall become meaningless – Conviction of appellants is unsustainable under Section 364A of IPC – Supreme Court has wide power to alter charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. whilst not causing prejudice to accused – Conviction under Section 364A of IPC set aside – Appellants now convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/-. (Paras 13, 15, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Point for consideration in this appeal to whether the facts, in this case, attract the offence under Section 364A of the IPC and if answer is in the negative, would it be just and proper to modify conviction to a sentence under Section 363 of the IPC.
Findings of Court:
Judgments of Trial Court and the High Court are modified to the above extent. Appellants are now convicted for the offence under Section 363 of IPC; i.e., kidnapping and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/-. If appellants have completed imprisonment of more than seven years with remission and have paid fine of Rs.2000/-, appellants to be released forthwith; if not on bail. If not, the appellants shall surrender within a period of four weeks and serve the remainder of sentence.
Result : Appeals allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5296 of 2012. In all other cases, leave has already been granted.

2. The present appeals have been filed by five accused whose convictions were confirmed by the impugned judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 13.02.2008, under Sections 148, 149 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short). The details of the cases are as under:

Criminal Appeals/SLP No.	Name of the accused persons	Period of custody undergone with remission
Criminal Appeal No. 987 of 2009	Raman Goswami (Deceased, Accused No.3)	6 years, 8 months & 10 days as per jail custody certificate dated 31.01.2023 (Since deceased) appeal abates.
Criminal Appeal No. 987 of 2009	Ravi Dhingra (Accused No.4)	7 years, 10 months & 13 days (on bail since 13.05.2009 as per jail custody certificate dated 31.01.2023)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 986 of 2009 and 988 of 2009	Laxmi Narain (Accused No.5)	Custody certificate not produced
Criminal Appeal No. 989-990/2009	Baljit Pahwa (Accused No.2)	7 years, 8 months & 2 days (on bail since 13.05.2009 as per jail custody certificate dated 31.01.2023)
SLP (Crl.) No. 5296 of 2012	Parvez Khan (Accused No.1)	3 years, 7 months & 2 days (on bail since 28.07.2012 as per jail custody certificate dated 31.01.2023)

Criminal Appeal No.987 of 2009, filed by Raman Goswami stands abated on account of his death vide order dated 08.04.2019. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.987 of 2009, is considered in respect of Ravi Dhingra alone. All these matters were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Facts in brief, as per FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2000 at Police Station, City Thanesar lodged at the instance of complainant, Dr. H.K. Sobti (PW-20) are that the appellants accused kidnapped Harsh (PW-21), aged 14 years, son of Dr H.K. Sobti and Smt Indra Sobti (PW-5) when he was going to school, at about 8:15 a.m. on the aforesaid date. The Station House Officer had filed the FIR with a remark that a case under Section 364/34 of the IPC seems to be made out from the facts. As per the statement of PW-21, he was intimidated by co-accused Ravi Dhingra to ride as a pillion rider on his scooter and upon his refusal, he was forcibly put inside a car. Upon screaming for safety, he was threatened to be killed with a knife and pistol if he cried. They also told him that his affluent father could even pay the ransom of Rs.50 lakhs.

It emerged in the investigation that PW-21 was kept in House No.772, Sector-13, Kurukshetra. Smt. Kanta Goyal (PW-2) who was a resident of house No. 1653/13 which was near the said school and another student of 9th Standard, namely, Manish (PW- 4) told them that at 8:15 a.m., two boys with muffled faces had put Harsh in a Maruti car without a number plate and having tinted window glass. Later, on the same day, calls demanding ransom were received, acting on which, PW-20 reached the concerned location with the ransom demanded. While he was waiting for the appellants accused to receive the ransom and release his child, PW-21 Harsh Sobti was released between 04:00 a.m. and 04:30 a.m. on 16.2.2000 and dropped near the house of PW-11 Suraj Bhan Rathee. He made a phone call to his mother, who took him to his house at around 5:30 a.m.

4. That demands and enquiries for ransom were made through letters and telephonic messages to PW-20 on 09.03.2000, 12.03.2000, 13.03.2000 and 14.03.2000. Another message regarding ransom was received via telephone on 15.03.2000 at 2:30 p.m. He informed the appellants that while he could not arrange Rs.15 lakhs, he had arranged Rs.12 lakhs. Acting on the instructions received in these messages, PW-20, after intimating the police, boarded