JUDGMENT
A.K. Roopanwal, J.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. ( Court No. 1) Saharanpur in ST. No. 756 of 1999, State v. Sharwan Kumar P.S. Deoband district Saharanpur under Section 364A of the IPC by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for one month.
2. The accusation which led to the trial of the accused appellant are as follows;
3. The complainant, Raj Pal son of Baru Singh is the resident of village Karanjali police station Deoband district Saharanpur. On 11.8.1997 his son Suhsil aged about 18 years was returning from Neelkanth Mahadeo along with Baburam son of Kishan Singh, Munesh son of Punna Sharma and Mane Singh of his village. When at about 8.30 PM, all of them reached in front of Badar Ki Rathan on Deoband-karanjali road, four persons came out of the nearby sugar cane field. They interrogated Sushil and others and later on took away Sushil with them in the nearby jungle. Baburam, Mane Singh and Munesh came to the village and told the whole incident to the complainant. The complainant thereafter, made a rigorous search for his son and when he was not found, he gave a written report of the incident at police station Deoband on 12.8.1997. On this report chik FIR at crime No. 315/97 under Section 364A of the IPC was written on 12.8.1997 at 9.40 A.M. and the case was registered at the same time at G.D. No. 26.
4. On 26.10.1997 at about 1.00 PM when the complainant was sitting out side of his house and talking with Sumer Chand and Jodha Ram, the appellant Sharwan along with one other person came there. He said to the complainant that in case, he does not make any complaint and pay Rs. 50, 000/in a day or two, his son would come back safely, otherwise, it would be difficult to find him alive. He also said that sufficient money has been spent on the keeping of Sushil. He warned the complainant that in case, the police is informed, he would meet the same fate as would come to his son. Sumer Chand and Jodha Ram requested the appellant for the safe release of Sushil.
5. The investigation of the case was taken by S.I. Nand Ram of police station Deoband who recorded the statements of all the witnesses, prepared the site plan of the place of abduction and after finalizing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
6. The accused appellant was committed to the court of Sessions on 14.9.99 by the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband.
7. The court of Sessions framed the charge under Section 364A of the IPC against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, examined pw-1 Rampal, pw-2 Sumer Chand, pw-3 Baburam and pw-4 head constable Amir Hasan.
8. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied from whole story of the prosecution and stated that he was implicated in the present case due to enmity. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
9. PW-1 stated that his son Sushil had gone to Nilkanth with Baburam, Munesh and Mane Singh and was returning to his village along with these persons when he was abducted by the unknown persons. The factum of abduction was told to him by Baburam and Munesh. He gave the written report of the incident at the police station on 12.8.1997. He also stated that after about 2-1/2 months of the incident when he was sitting out side of his house the appellant and one other person came there at about 1.00 P.M. and demanded a ransom of Rs. 50,000/from him.
10. PW-2, Sumer Chand stated that the son of complainant, Rampal was abducted about which the report was lodged by the complainant at the police station. After about 2-1/2 months of the abduction, the appellant demanded a ransom of Rs. 50.000/- for the release of complainant’s son when he was sitting at his house at about 1.00 PM
11. PW-3 Baburam stated about the factum of actual abduction at the time when the son of complainant and others were returning from Nilkanth Mahadeo.
12. PW-4 Amir Hasan proved the chik FIR exhibit ka-3 and also proved the carbon copy of CD of the registration of the case. He also proved the site plan of the place of abduction and the charge sheet.
13. Learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence produced by the prosecution found the case punishable under Section 364A of the IPC proved against the accused appellant and convicted him in the aforesaid manner.
14. We have heard Sri C.P. Dixit, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, the learned AGA.
15. In support of the appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW-1 Rajpal, PW-2 Sumer Chand and PW-3 Baburam was not sufficient either to prove the abduction of the son of the complainant or the demand of ransom made by the appellant. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel that even if the abduction and the demand of ransom are found to be proved that too cannot prove the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC against the appellant.
16. To prove the factum of abduction the prosecution relied upon the statement of PW-3, Baburam. He is the person who was with Sushil and was returning from Nilkanth Mahadeo when the occurrence took place. He stated that Sushil was abducted before him. He also stated that the fact of abduction was told by him to the complainant. In his cross examination, this fact could not be belied that he had gone to Nilkanth and was returning with Sushil when the abduction took place. This witness has no enmity with the accused nor has such affinity with the complainant so as to falsely implicate the accused appellant. Nothing has been shown on record by the appellant’s side to discredit this witness. He was a witness worth placing reliance and was rightly believed by the learned court below. His statement proved it beyond all the reasonable doubts that Sushil, the son of complainant was abducted by some unknown persons when he was returning from Nilkanth Mahadeo.
17. To prove the factum of demand of ransom made by the appellant, the prosecution relied upon the statements of PW-1, Rajpal and and PW-2 Sumer Chand. Both these witnesses clearly stated that the appellant came to the house of the complainant after about 2-1/2 months of the abduction and demanded a ransom of Rs. 50,000/for the safe release of the complainant’s son. They also stated that the appellant threatened the complainant that his son would see the worst if the ransom is not paid. The factum of demand of ransom and the factum of threatening could not be shattered during the whole cross examination of these witnesses. They were tried to be belied on the ground that both are real brothers and both had election enmity with the appellant. Though, PW-1, Rajpal and PW-2, Sumer Chand are real brothers but this cannot be a ground for discarding their statements. Their relationship is the best proof of their being together at the time when the ransom was demanded by the appellant. The so called election enmity as pointed out by the appellant cannot prompt the complainant or PW-2 to depose falsely against the appellant as these parties were not face to face in the election. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the so called election rivalry cannot be the basis for false implication of the appellant. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the demand of ransom could not be belied during their whole evidence and thus learned court below rightly placed reliance upon them and rightly held that these witnesses have proved the factum of demand of ransom made by the appellant after about 2-1/2 months of the abduction. Thus, the first submission of the learned Counsel that the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution do not prove either the abduction or the demand of ransom, is not acceptable one. The evidence on record proves it beyond all the reasonable doubts that the son of the complainant, Sushil was abducted by unknown persons when he was returning from Nilkanth Mahadeo and that the appellant approached the complainant after about 2-1/2 months of the abduction and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as ransom and threatened the complainant that in case the ransom is not paid his son would meet the dire consequences.
18. Now, we come to the second submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
19. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in spite of the fact that abduction and the demand of ransom are held to be proved these facts cannot establish the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC against the appellant. To hold him guilty for this offence it is necessary to prove that he was the person who took active part in abduction and because his participation in the abduction is not proved hence he cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC.
20. To appreciate the above argument, we would like to make a mention of Section 364A of the IPC. This section reads as follows;
364-A: Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international intergovernmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable, to fine.
21. A reading of the above section would show that in order to find a person guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364A, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that
(i) he kidnapped or abducted a person.
(ii)or that he kept such person under his detention after kidnapping or abduction,
(iii) That the kidnapping or abduction was made for ransom.
22. Thus, in view of the above, it is clear that to attract the provision of Section 364A, it is not necessary that the person who is keeping the kidnapped person in his detention must have taken part in his kidnapping or abduction. To attract this section it is sufficient if the accused keeps the kidnapped or abducted person under his detention and puts the demand for ransom.
23. A look at the evidence produced by the prosecution in the present case would show that it was proved beyond all the reasonable doubts that the appellant demanded ransom for the safe release of the abducted person which is indicative of the fact that the abducted person was under his detention. In other words, the demand of ransom was sufficient to prove that the appellant kept the abducted person under detention after the abduction.
24. From the evidence on record it is also proved beyond all the reasonable doubts that the appellant not only demanded ransom but also threatened that the abducted person would be eradicated with if the amount of ransom is not paid. The evidence also indicated that the appellant also threatened the complainant with dire consequence, if the police is informed about the factum of demand of ransom. Thus, all the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC were available against the appellant and he was rightly held guilty and convicted for this offence.
25. Above being position, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned court below to warrant any interference. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 364A of the IPC awarded by the trial court are maintained. The appellant is on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take the appellant into custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur within a week for compliance who shall send compliance report to this Court within one month.