Mehtab Alam Lalai Choudhari Vs. the State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/949427
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided OnAug-08-2012
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 107 of 2006
Judge V.M. KANADE & P.D. KODE
AppellantMehtab Alam Lalai Choudhari
RespondentThe State of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
oral judgment: [v.m. kanade, j.] 1. the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th july, 2004 passed by the additional sessions judge, greater bombay, has preferred this appeal. by the said judgment and order, the sessions judge was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under section 364-a of indian penal code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. the trial court also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 365 of i. p. c. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of rs.2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. the prosecution case in brief is as under- according to the prosecution, the appellant on 23-5-2001 at about 8.00 p.m. kidnapped son of the complainant and kept him in his custody, and thereafter demanded ransom of rs.60,000/- to the complainant. it is the case of the prosecution that a note which was dictated at the behest of the accused was delivered to the complainant's wife, in which it was stated that money should be delivered at a particular place on a particular date. after the ransom note was delivered to the complainant, a complaint was filed by him and pursuant to the said complaint, the police went to uttar pradesh along with the complainant and arrested the appellant/accused and rescued the boy, son of the complainant. prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses. the trial court relying on the testimony of the witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under section 364-a and 365 of the indian penal code. 3. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 364-a of the i. p. c. it is submitted that the prosecution has not established all the ingredients of section 364-a of i.p.c., and therefore, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted for the said offence. it is submitted that in the event this court comes to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for abducting the son of the complainant, then at the highest, appellant could be convicted for the offence punishable under section 365 of the i.p.c. in support of the said submission, the learned counsel has relied on the division bench judgment of this court in the case of – philips fadrick d'souza and anr. vs. state of maharashtra and anr. [2008 all mr (cri) 2830]. reliance is also placed on the judgment of the apex court in the case of – vishwanath gupta vs. state of uttaranchal [2007 cri. l.j. 2296]. 4. on the other hand, the learned app appearing on behalf of the respondent-state submitted that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. he submitted that the trial court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and has therefore rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under section 364-a and 365 of i. p. code, and therefore, interference with the judgment and order of the trial court is not warranted. 5. after having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned app, and after having gone through the judgment and order of the trial court and the evidence led by the prosecution, in our view, there is some substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant since the offence punishable under section 364-a of the i.p.c. is not made out and at the highest appellant could have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 365 of i.p.c. the prosecution in support of its case has examined eight witnesses. pw 1 - mohammed fazal siddique godil is father of the child (complainant). pw 2 abdul kasam ghachi is an independent witness who had written the ransom note, which was dictated by the accused; pw 3-shakir md. raza qureshi is the owner of chicken shop where the accused was working; pw 4 – mrs. kamrunnisa md. bashir is a witness who has stated that accused had kept son of the complainant in her house, which was situated at ward no. 3, pachparva, jagdishpur, taluka tulsipur, district balgampur (u.p.). pw 5 – rizwan ahmed jainullaha khan is a panch witness in respect of panchanama of recovery of the boy from the house of pw 4 mrs. kamrunnisa. pw 6 is a police officer – milind pandurang tambe, attached to d. n. nagar police station, who had recorded the missing complaint of the complainant on 23-5-2001. pw 7–suresh prabhakar bhawar is a p.i. who had gone to uttar pradesh on the direction of senior p.i. and had arrested the accused and rescued the body and had brought him to the police station. the entry made in the police diary was brought on record by this witness. pw 8 – anil janba bhise is the investigating officer who has completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 6. the prosecution, in our view, has established that the accused had kidnapped the minor son of the complainant and had taken him to uttar pradesh and had kept the said boy in the custody of pw 4 mrs. kamrunisa and had, thereafter, demanded ransom from the complainant. the only question which needs to be considered is whether the appellant has committed offence punishable under section 364-a or under s. 365 of i. p. code. 7. section 364-a was inserted and incorporated by virtue of amendment act 42 of 1993, with effect from 22-5-1993. the said section was further amended by virtue of amendment act 24 of 1995, and it was brought into force with effect from 26-5-1995. initially when said section was inserted in the indian penal code, it was restricted to kidnapping or abduction for the purpose of compelling the government to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. the scope of this section was expanded by subsequent act 24 of 1995 and following words were inserted – “any foreign state or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person” from the perusal of said amendment, it appears that the scope of section was extended and the words “any other person” were inserted. the division bench of this court had an occasion to consider the said provision in the case of philips fadrick d'souza and anr. (supra). the division bench after relying on the judgment of the apex court in the case of – suman sood vs. state of rajasthan [(2007)5 scc 634] and – vinod vs. state of haryana [2008 all mr (cri) 875 (s.c.) : (2008)2 scc 246) observed that offence under section 364-a is not made out only upon commission of unlawful act of kidnapping or abducting. the essential ingredient of the statutory provision was keeping a person in detention after kidnapping or abduction, giving a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or a reasonable apprehension of such conduct in order to compel payment of ransom. the division bench further observed that the purpose must exist at the time of kidnapping and abduction and whether such a purpose exists at that time will have to be deduced on the attendant circumstances. the division bench further observed that in interpreting section 364-a the court must be cognizant of the fact that the provision was introduced in order to deal with the serious menace posed by terrorism to the stability of civil society. 8. section 364a reads as under - “364a. kidnapping for ransom, etc. - 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 inter-governmental organisation 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.” perusal of the said section clearly reveals that the prosecution in order to prove its case under section 364-a has to establish - (i) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; (ii) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (iii) the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom. 9. keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the apex court and the ratio of the judgment of the division bench of this court, we have to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution. the prosecution has examined pw 1 md. fazal, who is the complainant. he has stated that he was carrying on business of selling plastic bags and that he had three sons, namely md. faizal, md. faizan and md. nawaz. according to him, on 23-5-2001 after he left his house at about 7.00 to 7.30 a. m., came back at about 1.30 p.m. thereafter at 9.30 p.m. he received telephone from his house and his maternal aunt told him on phone that his son faizan was abducted. he, therefore, came back to his house and made a thorough search to find his son in the vicinity. however, he could not find whereabouts of his son. he stated that thereafter he went to the d. n. nagar police station and lodged missing complainant of his son at about 11.00 p.m. he stated that thereafter his wife informed him that somebody has given a note in his name, and he read the said note. he further stated that in the said note it was stated that he should bring rs. 60,000/- with him and travel by train to gonda railway station and thereafter to panchpodawa and sit there at one place and after his name was called, he should accompany that person and he will get his son. his complaint was recorded, and thereafter police accompanied him. he also stated that he suspected that his friend mehtab had taken away his son. the witness identified the accused who was sitting in the court. he also identified the note which was delivered to him. he has further stated that after the police had gone to panchpodawa, they obtained custody of his son from the house of maternal uncle of the accused and later on they brought the accused to bombay. however, by and large his testimony was not shattered in the cross-examination. 10. pw 2 abdul kasam ghachi has stated that he know the accused since he was his friend and he identified the accused. he has stated that on 23-5-2001 the accused had asked him to write a note, and accordingly, he had agreed to prepare the note for and on behalf of the accused. he identified his hand writing on the said note and he was asked to write the name “faizal” at the backside of said note, and accordingly, he had written the said name on the backside of said note. he has further stated that there was reference of rs. 60,000/- and the said figure was also mentioned by him in the note. in the cross-examination he has stated that he is residing at bombay in a hut which was erected near the road, and that hut was constructed in a private land and that it is situated near the d. n. nagar police station. it is also stated that said hut was not demolished either by the municipal corporation or by the police. he has stated that name of the accused was not mentioned in the note because accused has not asked him to write his name. he has further stated in the cross-examination that the police of d. n. nagar police station had taken him in the intervening night of 23-5-2001 and 24-5-2001 at about mid night. so far as this witness is concerned, question is whether his testimony can be relied upon. this witness has stated that he has written a note on the request made by the accused. said note has been brought on record and marked as exhibit “10”. perusal of this note indicates that it is not addressed to the complainant, nor is there any specific reference of his son. it merely states that an amount of rs.60,000/- should be brought to a particular place in uttar pradesh and the said amount should be given to him after his name is called out. there is no direct threat given in the said note of any harm being caused to the son of the complainant, if the ransom amount is not paid, which would result in death of the abducted child, nor can it be said that it gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the abducted child would be caused death or hurt. the prosecution has not established that the person who delivered the note to the wife of the complainant had given any specific instructions. the note also does not state that son of the complainant was abducted and was kept in safe custody. the note also does not state that in the event ransom amount is not paid, the child would be murdered or hurt would be caused to him. in our view, therefore, said note does not establish that the accused had given a threat to cause death or hurt to the abducted child on the failure of the complainant to pay ransom. 11. pw 2 abdul kasam ghachi has also admitted that he was called by the police on 23-5-2001 and he was in the police station in the night of 23-5-2001 and 24-5-2001. he also stated that he was residing in a hut, which was situated near the road. taking into consideration these facts and the admission given by this witness that he was in the police station in the night of 23-5-2001 and 24-5-2001 it is difficult to rely on the evidence of prosecution that this witness had written the note at the instance of the appellant/accused. it appears that said note is a got up note, prepared by the prosecution in order to establish its case under section 364-a of i.p.c. it is to be noted here that the accused had already expressed his suspicion that the appellant had committed the offence of kidnapping. this witness has stated in his evidence that though he has written note as per the say of the accused, he does not remember the contents. in view of the admission given by this witness, contents of the note have not been established by this witness and that is one of the circumstance on which it is difficult to rely on the testimony of this witness. 12. pw 3 shakir md. raza qureshi is the owner of chicken shop where the accused was working. he has stated that he was working with him as his servant in his shop. he has also stated that the accused and the complainant knew each other since the complainant used to supply him polyethylene bags. 13. pw 4 mrs. kamrunnisa md. bashir is the aunt of the accused. she has identified the accused in the court. she has stated that on 25th of 2001 the accused came to her house with a child and informed him that he was his son. she has stated that accused asked her to keep the said male child since he is going to nepal to purchase some goods. she has further stated that police thereafter took custody of the child and she came to know that said child was not son of the accused. in the cross-examination the testimony of this witness is not shaken. from the testimony of this witness it is clearly established that the accused brought the child to the house of this witness, situated at ward no. 3 pachparva, jagdishpur, taluka tulsipur, district balgampur (u.p.). 14. pw 5 rizwan ahmed jainullaha khan has stated that he knew pw 4 mrs. kamrunnisa. he has further stated that he was called by the police at the house of pw 4 kamrunnisa to act as a panch. he has further stated that one more panch was called by the police. according to him, in presence of panchas pw 4 kamrunnisa handed over the child to the police and the panchanama to that effect was made. this witness has proved the panchanama dated 29-5-2001. the suggestions made by the defence were denied by this witness. 15. pw 6 milind pandurang tambe, is api attached to antop hill police station, and at the relevant time he was attached to the d. n. nagar police station. he has stated that missing complaint was lodged on 23-5-2001 at about 11.15 p.m. he has further stated that on 24-5-2001 the complainant informed the police that a note was given to his wife in which it was stated that he should pay rs. 60,000/-. he further stated that he carried out the investigation after the complaint was registered for the offence punishable under section 364-a of i.p.c. and that they traced the writer of exhibit “10” and recorded his statement on 24-5-2001. 16. pw 7 suresh bhawar was the api attached to d. n. nagar police station. he has stated the steps taken by him while investigating the fir, registered at the instance of the complainant. he has further stated that they arrested the accused from his house. 17. pw 8 anil bhise was pi attached, attached to the d. n. nagar police station, at the relevant time. he has stated as to how he along with others had arrested the accused in uttar pradesh. 18. from the evidence which has come on record, in our view, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused had abducted and kidnapped son of the complainant and had taken him to the house of pw 4 kamrunnisa. offence of kidnapping, therefore, under section 365 i.p.c. has been established by the prosecution. 19. however, in our view, the prosecution has failed to establish that a ransom note was issued at the instance of the appellant, and therefore, one of the essential ingredient of section 364-a of i.p.c. has not been established by the prosecution. the finding recorded by the trial court, therefore, on this aspect, will have to be set aside. hence, the following order. order appeal is partly allowed. i. conviction of the appellant under section 365 of the indian penal code is confirmed and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. ii. the appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 364-a of the indian penal code. the judgment and order passed by the trial court to that extent is set aside. iii. the appellant is entitled to the benefit of set of under section 428 cr. p. c. against the sentence of imprisonment.
Judgment:

Oral Judgment: [V.M. Kanade, J.]

1. The Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th July, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, has preferred this appeal. By the said judgment and order, the Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial court also convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 365 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under-

According to the prosecution, the Appellant on 23-5-2001 at about 8.00 p.m. kidnapped son of the complainant and kept him in his custody, and thereafter demanded ransom of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that a note which was dictated at the behest of the Accused was delivered to the complainant's wife, in which it was stated that money should be delivered at a particular place on a particular date. After the ransom note was delivered to the complainant, a complaint was filed by him and pursuant to the said complaint, the police went to Uttar Pradesh along with the complainant and arrested the Appellant/Accused and rescued the boy, son of the complainant. Prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses. The trial court relying on the testimony of the witnesses, convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the offences punishable under Section 364-A and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the trial court had erred in convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the I. P. C. It is submitted that the prosecution has not established all the ingredients of Section 364-A of I.P.C., and therefore, the Appellant was entitled to be acquitted for the said offence. It is submitted that in the event this Court comes to the conclusion that the Appellant was responsible for abducting the son of the complainant, then at the highest, Appellant could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the I.P.C. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of – Philips Fadrick D'Souza and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2830]. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – Vishwanath Gupta Vs. State of Uttaranchal [2007 Cri. L.J. 2296].

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State submitted that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the trial court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and has therefore rightly convicted the Appellant for the offences punishable under Section 364-A and 365 of I. P. Code, and therefore, interference with the judgment and order of the trial court is not warranted.

5. After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP, and after having gone through the judgment and order of the trial court and the evidence led by the prosecution, in our view, there is some substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant since the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. is not made out and at the highest Appellant could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 365 of I.P.C. The prosecution in support of its case has examined eight witnesses. PW 1 - Mohammed Fazal Siddique Godil is father of the child (complainant). PW 2 Abdul Kasam Ghachi is an independent witness who had written the ransom note, which was dictated by the Accused; PW 3-Shakir Md. Raza Qureshi is the owner of Chicken shop where the Accused was working; PW 4 – Mrs. Kamrunnisa Md. Bashir is a witness who has stated that Accused had kept son of the complainant in her house, which was situated at Ward No. 3, Pachparva, Jagdishpur, Taluka Tulsipur, District Balgampur (U.P.). PW 5 – Rizwan Ahmed Jainullaha Khan is a panch witness in respect of panchanama of recovery of the boy from the house of PW 4 Mrs. Kamrunnisa. PW 6 is a Police Officer – Milind Pandurang Tambe, attached to D. N. Nagar Police Station, who had recorded the missing complaint of the complainant on 23-5-2001. PW 7–Suresh Prabhakar Bhawar is a P.I. who had gone to Uttar Pradesh on the direction of Senior P.I. and had arrested the accused and rescued the body and had brought him to the police station. The entry made in the police diary was brought on record by this witness. PW 8 – Anil Janba Bhise is the investigating officer who has completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.

6. The prosecution, in our view, has established that the Accused had kidnapped the minor son of the complainant and had taken him to Uttar Pradesh and had kept the said boy in the custody of PW 4 Mrs. Kamrunisa and had, thereafter, demanded ransom from the complainant. The only question which needs to be considered is whether the Appellant has committed offence punishable under Section 364-A or under S. 365 of I. P. Code.

7. Section 364-A was inserted and incorporated by virtue of Amendment Act 42 of 1993, with effect from 22-5-1993. The said section was further amended by virtue of Amendment Act 24 of 1995, and it was brought into force with effect from 26-5-1995. Initially when said section was inserted in the Indian Penal Code, it was restricted to kidnapping or abduction for the purpose of compelling the Government to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. The scope of this section was expanded by subsequent Act 24 of 1995 and following words were inserted –

“any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person”

From the perusal of said Amendment, it appears that the scope of section was extended and the words “any other person” were inserted. The Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the said provision in the case of Philips Fadrick D'Souza and Anr. (supra). The Division Bench after relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – Suman Sood Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2007)5 SCC 634] and – Vinod Vs. State of Haryana [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 875 (S.C.) : (2008)2 SCC 246) observed that offence under Section 364-A is not made out only upon commission of unlawful act of kidnapping or abducting. The essential ingredient of the statutory provision was keeping a person in detention after kidnapping or abduction, giving a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or a reasonable apprehension of such conduct in order to compel payment of ransom. The Division Bench further observed that the purpose must exist at the time of kidnapping and abduction and whether such a purpose exists at that time will have to be deduced on the attendant circumstances. The Division Bench further observed that in interpreting Section 364-A the Court must be cognizant of the fact that the provision was introduced in order to deal with the serious menace posed by terrorism to the stability of civil society.

8. Section 364A reads as under -

“364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. - 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 inter-governmental organisation 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.”

Perusal of the said section clearly reveals that the prosecution in order to prove its case under Section 364-A has to establish - (i) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; (ii) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (iii) the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.

9. Keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court and the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we have to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Md. Fazal, who is the complainant. He has stated that he was carrying on business of selling plastic bags and that he had three sons, namely Md. Faizal, Md. Faizan and Md. Nawaz. According to him, on 23-5-2001 after he left his house at about 7.00 to 7.30 a. m., came back at about 1.30 p.m. Thereafter at 9.30 p.m. he received telephone from his house and his maternal aunt told him on phone that his son Faizan was abducted. He, therefore, came back to his house and made a thorough search to find his son in the vicinity. However, he could not find whereabouts of his son. He stated that thereafter he went to the D. N. Nagar Police Station and lodged missing complainant of his son at about 11.00 p.m. He stated that thereafter his wife informed him that somebody has given a note in his name, and he read the said note. He further stated that in the said note it was stated that he should bring Rs. 60,000/- with him and travel by train to Gonda Railway Station and thereafter to Panchpodawa and sit there at one place and after his name was called, he should accompany that person and he will get his son. His complaint was recorded, and thereafter police accompanied him. He also stated that he suspected that his friend Mehtab had taken away his son. The witness identified the accused who was sitting in the court. He also identified the note which was delivered to him. He has further stated that after the police had gone to Panchpodawa, they obtained custody of his son from the house of maternal uncle of the accused and later on they brought the accused to Bombay. However, by and large his testimony was not shattered in the cross-examination.

10. PW 2 Abdul Kasam Ghachi has stated that he know the accused since he was his friend and he identified the accused. He has stated that on 23-5-2001 the Accused had asked him to write a note, and accordingly, he had agreed to prepare the note for and on behalf of the Accused. He identified his hand writing on the said note and he was asked to write the name “Faizal” at the backside of said note, and accordingly, he had written the said name on the backside of said note. He has further stated that there was reference of Rs. 60,000/- and the said figure was also mentioned by him in the note. In the cross-examination he has stated that he is residing at Bombay in a hut which was erected near the road, and that hut was constructed in a private land and that it is situated near the D. N. Nagar Police Station. It is also stated that said hut was not demolished either by the Municipal Corporation or by the police. He has stated that name of the Accused was not mentioned in the note because Accused has not asked him to write his name. He has further stated in the cross-examination that the police of D. N. Nagar Police Station had taken him in the intervening night of 23-5-2001 and 24-5-2001 at about mid night. So far as this witness is concerned, question is whether his testimony can be relied upon. This witness has stated that he has written a note on the request made by the Accused. Said note has been brought on record and marked as Exhibit “10”. Perusal of this note indicates that it is not addressed to the complainant, nor is there any specific reference of his son. It merely states that an amount of Rs.60,000/- should be brought to a particular place in Uttar Pradesh and the said amount should be given to him after his name is called out. There is no direct threat given in the said note of any harm being caused to the son of the complainant, if the ransom amount is not paid, which would result in death of the abducted child, nor can it be said that it gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the abducted child would be caused death or hurt. The prosecution has not established that the person who delivered the note to the wife of the complainant had given any specific instructions. The note also does not state that son of the complainant was abducted and was kept in safe custody. The note also does not state that in the event ransom amount is not paid, the child would be murdered or hurt would be caused to him. In our view, therefore, said note does not establish that the Accused had given a threat to cause death or hurt to the abducted child on the failure of the complainant to pay ransom.

11. PW 2 Abdul Kasam Ghachi has also admitted that he was called by the police on 23-5-2001 and he was in the police station in the night of 23-5-2001 and 24-5-2001. He also stated that he was residing in a hut, which was situated near the road. Taking into consideration these facts and the admission given by this witness that he was in the police station in the night of 23-5-2001 and 24-5-2001 it is difficult to rely on the evidence of prosecution that this witness had written the note at the instance of the Appellant/Accused. It appears that said note is a got up note, prepared by the prosecution in order to establish its case under Section 364-A of I.P.C. It is to be noted here that the Accused had already expressed his suspicion that the Appellant had committed the offence of kidnapping. This witness has stated in his evidence that though he has written note as per the say of the Accused, he does not remember the contents. In view of the admission given by this witness, contents of the note have not been established by this witness and that is one of the circumstance on which it is difficult to rely on the testimony of this witness.

12. PW 3 Shakir Md. Raza Qureshi is the owner of chicken shop where the Accused was working. He has stated that he was working with him as his servant in his shop. He has also stated that the Accused and the complainant knew each other since the complainant used to supply him polyethylene bags.

13. PW 4 Mrs. Kamrunnisa Md. Bashir is the aunt of the Accused. She has identified the Accused in the court. She has stated that on 25th of 2001 the Accused came to her house with a child and informed him that he was his son. She has stated that Accused asked her to keep the said male child since he is going to Nepal to purchase some goods. She has further stated that police thereafter took custody of the child and she came to know that said child was not son of the Accused. In the cross-examination the testimony of this witness is not shaken. From the testimony of this witness it is clearly established that the Accused brought the child to the house of this witness, situated at Ward No. 3 Pachparva, Jagdishpur, Taluka Tulsipur, district Balgampur (U.P.).

14. PW 5 Rizwan Ahmed Jainullaha Khan has stated that he knew PW 4 Mrs. Kamrunnisa. He has further stated that he was called by the police at the house of PW 4 Kamrunnisa to act as a panch. He has further stated that one more panch was called by the police. According to him, in presence of panchas PW 4 Kamrunnisa handed over the child to the police and the panchanama to that effect was made. This witness has proved the panchanama dated 29-5-2001. The suggestions made by the defence were denied by this witness.

15. PW 6 Milind Pandurang Tambe, is API attached to Antop Hill Police Station, and at the relevant time he was attached to the D. N. Nagar Police Station. He has stated that missing complaint was lodged on 23-5-2001 at about 11.15 p.m. He has further stated that on 24-5-2001 the complainant informed the police that a note was given to his wife in which it was stated that he should pay Rs. 60,000/-. He further stated that he carried out the investigation after the complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of I.P.C. and that they traced the writer of Exhibit “10” and recorded his statement on 24-5-2001.

16. PW 7 Suresh Bhawar was the API attached to D. N. Nagar Police Station. He has stated the steps taken by him while investigating the FIR, registered at the instance of the complainant. He has further stated that they arrested the accused from his house.

17. PW 8 Anil Bhise was PI attached, attached to the D. N. Nagar Police Station, at the relevant time. He has stated as to how he along with others had arrested the Accused in Uttar Pradesh.

18. From the evidence which has come on record, in our view, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant/Accused had abducted and kidnapped son of the complainant and had taken him to the house of PW 4 Kamrunnisa. Offence of kidnapping, therefore, under Section 365 I.P.C. has been established by the prosecution.

19. However, in our view, the prosecution has failed to establish that a ransom note was issued at the instance of the Appellant, and therefore, one of the essential ingredient of Section 364-A of I.P.C. has not been established by the prosecution. The finding recorded by the trial court, therefore, on this aspect, will have to be set aside. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

Appeal is partly allowed.

I. Conviction of the Appellant under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

II. The Appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment and order passed by the trial court to that extent is set aside.

III. The Appellant is entitled to the benefit of set of under Section 428 Cr. P. C. against the sentence of imprisonment.