Nandkishore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.197/05. The trial Court held the

appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364-A of IPC and awarded sentence of RIÂ for life alongwith fine of Rs.500/-

with default stipulation RI three months.

Prosecution story in brief is that Mr. H.N. Rathore was posted as Sub Engineer in Khajuraho Sub Division of Agriculture Department on

31.05.2005, he was returning back from Motitikariya to Salaiya in his Maruti car. His driver was driving the car. On the back seat of the car, two

persons namely Rakesh Pande and Pragilal were sitting. When they reached near 'Nar Nala', four persons who were armed with weapons stopped

the car and threatened the complainant and other persons by gun. Both the persons, who were sitting on the back seat of the car, were forced to leave

the car. The complainant was tied by a rope. He was directed to sit on the back seat of the car. One abductor was driving the car. They went to the

forest of Palkohon. Both the eyes of the abductee were tied by a cloth so he could not see the place. Mohan Patel told the abductee (H.N. Rathore)

to instruct his family members to send Rs.20 lacs, failing which, the abductee would be killed. Mr. Rathore told him that he is not able to give Rs.20

lacs. On this, accused Mohan Patel slapped him and thereafter, he directed him to instruct the family members to send Rs. 5 lacs. Thereafter,

abductee had written a letter on the paper, taking out the same from his diary, to his wife and son and requested them to send Rs. 5 lacs. Driver of the

abductee i.e. Narayan went to Chhatarpur with the letters and informed the police. Thereafter, dehati nalshi was registered. On 01.06.2005, police

went to the spot. Thereafter accused-appellant was arrested.

Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. Six persons were prosecuted before

the trial Court. The trial Court held the appellant-Nandkishore and Chhutte Raja guilty for commission of offence and awarded punishment as

mentioned above in the judgment. Co-accused Chhutte Raja filed Criminal Appeal No.2325/2007, which was abated because he was died during the

pendency of the appeal. Present appeal has been filed by appellantNandkishore.

PW-14 Mr. H.N. Rathore deposed that on 31.05.2005, at around 7:30 in the evening, I was returning back in my Maruti Car after inspecting

construction of a pond. My driver was driving the car and Mr. Pragilal Patel and Rakesh Pande were sitting on the back seat of the car. I was on the

front seat. When we reached near 'Nar Nala', four persons, who were armed with guns, stopped the car. One person pointed a gun at the head of my

driver and had taken out the key of the car. One person who was short in height pointed a 315 bore gun at my temporal region. Another person who

was wearing maroon pant and T-shirt had 12 bore gun. Another person who was wearing shirt and jeans also had 12 bore gun. All the accused

persons had forced Rakesh Pande and Pragi Patel to leave the car. They also threatened them that if they would tell the incident to anybody, they

would also be killed. My both hands were tied and they had covered my eyes. Thereafter, one person was riding the motorbike and another person

was driving my car. When they stopped the car at Palkohan Road, I identified the accused persons. Accused Mohan Patel had made a demand of

Rs.20 lacs from me. I told him that I am not able to pay this much amount, on this, he slapped me on right cheek. He further told me that I had to pay

Rs. 5 lacs, failing which he would shoot me. Thereafter, he instructed me to write a letter. I had taken out two papers from my diary and wrote letters,

which are Ex.P6 and P7. The letters were taken by my driver to my house. He informed the police. Accused persons kept me in the forest. They

were armed. They guarded me one by one. On the next morning, I identified accused Mohan Patel and other co-accused persons. On 01.06.2005

police came there. After seeing the police, accused persons ran away towards the forest. Thereafter, I was freed from captivity. Baramadgi

Panchnama was prepared, which is Ex.P3 and I signed the same. On the next day, i.e. 02.06.2005, police inspected the spot and prepared spot map,

which is Ex.P2Â and I signed the same. I went with the Tehsildar to conduct identification. Identification memo Ex.P13 was prepared and I signed

the same. I identified the present appellant/Nandkishore, Chhutte Raja and Ramesh. He was cross-examined at length, however, there is nothing in his

crossexamination to contradict his evidence.

PW-1 Narayan is the driver, who was driving the car. He deposed the same facts that I, abductee and two other persons were in the car. When

we reached near 'Nar Nala', four persons stopped the car. He specifically deposed that Chhutte Raja fixed the gun at my head and he had taken out

the key from the car. He also identified the present appellant and further deposed that all the accused persons forced Rakesh Pande and Pragi Patel

to leave the car. Thereafter, Ramesh was driving the car. Our both the hands were tied behind. We were forced to sit on the back seat of the car.

Present appellant was riding on Suzuki motorcycle ahead of the car. They made a demand of Rs. 5 lacs from the abductee and threatened him that if

the money be not given, they would kill the abductee. Thereafter, abductee Mr. Rathore had written letters and the letters were handed over to me. I

had gone to the office of S.D.O. (Irrigation) Mr. Mishra alongwith the letters of the abductee. Thereafter, Sunil made a phone call to the police and

police went there. When we were going to the spot, Chhutte Raja and Mohan met with us and I had handed over the money to them. Thereafter, I

went to the place where abductee was kept and at that time, police reached there. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot. They also

left the Suzuki motorcycle at the spot. I lodged report at police station Bameetha, which is Ex.P1, and signed the same. I also signed Baramadgi

Panchnama Ex.P3. Suzuki motorcycle was seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P4. I signed the same. Police seized the letters vide seizure

memo Ex.P5 and I signed the same. Letters written by the abductee are Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and I signed both the documents. He has also been

extensively cross-examined, however, there is nothing adverse in his cross-examination.

PW-2 Roopram Patel deposed that driver Narayan Singh came to my residence and told me that Mr. Rathore was abducted. He had also shown

me the letters and told me to make arrangement for the money. Thereafter, I met with Mr. K.K. Mishra and Sunil Choubey. Sunil Choubey and K.

K. Mishra made arrangement for the money and contacted the police. Before me, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 were seized and I signed the same.

PW-4 Bhagwan Kiran deposed that I was posted as Arms Clerk at Collectorate and a sanction to prosecute the accused persons under Arms Act

was granted. PW-5 Anil Kumar Talaiya, Naib Tehsildar conducted identification. He deposed that on 12.08.2005 I was posted as Naib Tehsildar and I

conducted identification parade at the jail premises. In the aforesaid identification parade, abductee Mr. H.N. Rathore identified the

appellant/Nandkishore. At the time of identification, 10 persons were mixed alongwith the accused persons. The body of the accused persons was

covered upto the neck. The identification memo is Ex.P13, I signed the same. PW-6 R. Gorelal received Dehati Nalshi Ex.P1 and handed over the

same at Satai Police Station. PW-7 Swami Prasad Namdeo is the Patwari. He prepared spot map Ex.P12. PW-9 Ramkanth Shukla deposed that I

examined the gun seized from the appellant and the gun was in working condition. PW-16 Vijay Tiwari verified the fact before me the appellant was

arrested by arrest memo Ex.P20 and I signed the same. One katta was seized from the possession of the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P21 and I

signed the same. PW-18 V. N. Shukla verified the fact that he had arrested the appellant and on his memorandum Ex.P22, one single barrel gun

(addhi) was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P21. I signed the same.

PW-20 Prafulla Shrivastava is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on the complaint of Narayan Singh, Dehati Nalshi was registered, which

is Ex.P1 and I signed the same. He further deposed that I prepared spot map on 02.06.2005, which is Ex.P2 and signed the same. I also seized the

letters written by the abductee/H.N. Rathore vide seizure memo Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. A motorcycle was seized on 01.06.2005 vide seizure memo Ex.P4.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On the memorandum of the present appellant, one 12 bore gun was seized.

Appellant produced two witnesses i.e. DW-1 Mohanlal Patel and DW-2 Nandlal Patel in defence. Their evidence is not so material.

From the evidence of PW-14 (abductee) this fact has been proved that when he was returning after inspecting a pond (tank), accused persons

stopped the car and abducted him. They forced him to write a letter. A demand of Rs. 5 lacs was also made. He was kept in illegal detention.

Accused persons had threatened him that if the money be not paid, he would be killed. Driver (PW-1), who was driving the car and was present at the

time of incident, verified the aforesaid fact. He had given the letters to the family members. He also lodged the report at the police station. Thereafter,

the money was handed over to accused persons. When the accused persons reached the place where the abductee was kept, police also came there

and accused persons ran away. From the possession of the present appellant, a gun was seized. Appellant was identified in an identification parade

conducted by the Tehsildar.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod vs State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 246 has held as under about the ingredients of Section 364-A of

IPC :

 31. “7. Section 364-A deals with Kidnapping for ransom etc. This Section reads as follows:

 '364-A 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 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.'

The Section refers to both Kidnapping andAbduction. Section 359 defines Kidnapping. As per the said provision there are two types of kidnapping

i.e. (1) kidnapping from India; and (2) kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Abduction is defined in Section 362. The provision envisages two types of abduction i.e. (1) by force or by compulsion; and/or (2) inducement by

deceitful means. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of the victim from any place. The case at hand falls in the second

category.

To Induce means to lead into. Deceit accordingto its plain dictionary meaning signifies anything intended to mislead another. It is a matter of

intention and even if promise held out by the accused was fulfilled by him, the question is: whether he was acting in a bonafide manner?

The offence of abduction is a continuingoffence. This Section was amended in 1992 by Act XLII of 1993 with effect from 22.5.1993 and it was

subsequently amended in 1995 by Act XXIV of 1995 with effect from 26.5.1995. The Section provides punishment for kidnapping, abduction or

detaining for ransom.

To attract the provisions of Section 364-A what is required to be proved is (1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; and (2) kept

him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.

To pay a ransom as per Blacks Law Dictionarymeans to pay price or demand for ransom. The word demand means to claim as ones due; to

require; to ask relief; to summon; to call in Court; An imperative request preferred by one person to another requiring the latter to do or yield

something or to abstain from some act; An asking with authority, claiming. The definition as pointed out above would show that the demand has to be

communicated. It is an imperative request or a claim made.â€​*

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment had held that to attract the provisions of Section 364-A, it is required that the accused

kidnapped or abducted the person, kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction and that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom

and thereafter there was a threat to the life of the abductee.

As per the evidence produced by the prosecution, analyzed above in this judgment, in our opinion, all the ingredients have been made out of Section

364-A of IPC. Hence, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 364-A of

IPC and awarded proper sentence. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed.