Netrapal vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran, J.—We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned AGA. Crl. Appeal No. 500 of 2003 has been preferred by appellant, Netrapal against the judgement and order dated 20.1.2003 passed by the Spl. Judge (DAA), Etah, in Spl. Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2000, convicting and sentencing the appellant Netrapal to imprisonment for life u/s 364A and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, to 7 years'' RI u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Crl. Jail Appeal No. 5870 of 2003 has been preferred by the appellant Natthoo from jail against the same judgment of the trial judge awarding the same sentences under Sections 304A and 307/34 IPC as the appellant Netrapal. However, he has further been convicted and sentenced to one year''s RI u/s 25 Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The sentences awarded to both the appellants were to run concurrently. For not paying the fines, both the appellants in the two aforesaid appeals are to undergo one year''s RI each.

Sri S.K. Pandey appeared for the appellant Netrapal. However, as the other appellant, Natthoo, was not represented by any counsel, we asked Sri Pandey whether he would like to represent the appellant, Natthoo, also. On his acceptance, we appointed Sri S.K. Pandey to represent Natthoo also as amicus curiae by our order dated 2.7.2007.

We have heard Sri S.K. Pandey in both the appeals arising from the aforesaid judgment and the learned AGA Sri Amarjeet Singh Sirohi for the State and have perused the judgment and the record.

The prosecution case in brief as narrated in the FIR lodged by Gurudutta Misra, a resident of village Nagaria, was that on 11.2.2000 at about 4 pm his co-villagers Dinesh Misra, Rampal and Nem Chandra were working in their field. Another co-villager Ballister informed him that there were some armed miscreants in the field of Mukhtiyar. Thereupon, the informant summoned his co-villagers from their fields by means of gestures and told them what Ballister had disclosed to him. All of them then approached Mukhtiyar''s field where they hid behind the bushes and raised an alarm. Thereupon, the miscreants started firing with their illicit arms on Gurudatta and others but they escaped because they were sheltered by the bushes. They then pursued the fleeing miscreants. The two miscrcreants run away firing with their illicit arms but one miscreant was apprehended at about 100 paces in mukhtiyar''s field at about 6 pm. He was carrying a 12-bore country-made pistol, three live and one empty cartridges, and also a knife. The miscreant disclosed his name to be Natthoo, son of Dan Sahai, resident of village Milak, PS Narkhi, district Firozabad. He disclosed that the two persons who had escaped were Netrapal, son of Salik Kachchi, resident of the same village Milak and Ramlal, resident of village Dadarpur, P.S. Phariya, district Firozabad. He further disclosed that the three had abducted one person from village Jallukhera. In this abduction they were aided by some persons of village Bagpas, whose names he did not know; but who were known to Netrapal and Ramlal. The abductee was present in the field. After that Gurudatta and others took Natthoo to Mukhtiyar''s field where they found the boy tied with a rope with his eyes blindfolded with a muffler. When they removed the muffler from his eyes end his ropes he gained some confidence, and disclosed to the informant and other that he was Chandrapal, son of Madan Singh Kushwaha, a resident of Jallukhera, PS Shakrauli, district Etah. About 7 days earlier, the sala (wife''s brother) of his tau''s (elder brother of father) son Netrapal, resident of Milak, had met him. He was accompanied by two others who had abducted him and brought him from his village and handed him over to his associates in Etah. Four days prior to the incident they had got a letter demanding a ransom of Rs. 3 lakhs written by the abductee Chandrapal, which Netrapal took along with him.

The informant''s party took the apprehended miscreants and the arms and cartridges, rope and knife and the abductee to the police station Sikandarpur, which was 7 kms away, the next morning and a report (Ext. Ka 1) was lodged at PS Sikandapurvaish on 12.2.2000 at 1.40 pm. The chik report and the necessary GD entries were made on the basis of the report. At that time SI Narendra Kumar was present at the police station, who started investigation of the case. After making copies of the chik and naqal rapats and the recovery memos, he recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the abductee Chanrapal and also of the accused Natthoo. Chandrapal was sent for medical examination along with constable Rajendra Singh. He was medically examined on 13.2.2000 at 12.30 pm at PHC Patiali Etah, where the doctor noted the following injuries on his person:

Contusion (brownish black) over (right) back mid-scapular region size 3 cm x 2 cm.

Abraded contusion (scabbed) over (left) popliteal region size 2 cm x 1.5 cm.

Contusion (brownish black) over medial side of (right) foot 4 cm below ankle, size 2 cm x 2 cm.

Complaints of pain over whole body.

In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were 5 days old and were caused by a hard and blunt object and were simple in nature.

SI Narendra Kumar copied out the report of the medical examination of the abductee Chaudrapal and also the supurdginana of the abducteee on 14.2.2000 in the case-diary. After that the investigation was transferred on 23.2.2000 to Sri Ram Kumar Singh, who was SO, PS Shakrauli as the abduction related to PS Chakrauli, which was the police station of the home village of Chandrapal from where he was abducted. He received the copies of the earlier investigation at PS Sikandarpurvaish. On 24.2.2000 on the pointing out of a Mukhbir, he arrested the accused Netrapal and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C statement. The same day, he recorded the further statement of the victim Chandrapal and also his evidence in defence. On 3.3.2000 on the pointing out of the victim Chandrapal, he prepared the site-plan (Ext. Ka 6) of the spot from where Chandrapal was abducted. On 18.3.2000 the investigation was transferred to Dushyant Kumar Singh SO, Shakrauli, who after persuing the papers of the earlier investigation, submitted the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka 2) against the appellants Natthoo and Netrapal. The third accused Ramlal, however, could not be traced.

A charge u/s 364A IPC was framed against the appellants Netrapal and Natthoo on 26.9.2000 by the learned sessions judge. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses of fact.

PW 1 Gurudatta Misra, the informant, narrated the version given in the FIR mentioned hereinabove and the circumstances in which the accused Natthoo was arrested and the weapons etc. which were recovered from him and who disclosed that his associates, who ran away, were Netrapal Rampal. He also got the victim Chandrapal, resident of Jallukhera. recovered from Mukhtiyar''s wheat field who was tied up with a rope and whose were blindfolded with a muffler, and who disclosed about his abductee days earlier, in which Netrapal, who was the sale of his tau''s son (i.e. his cousin brother) and who along with Netrapal and Randal had abducted him for ransom. He also mentioned that a ransom letter demanding Rs. 3 lakhs had been sent to his family members. Natthoo and ChandraPal were brought to the village along with the recovered weapons and ammunitions and later on taken to PS Sikandarpurvaish, where they were handed over to the custouy of the police officer and the the FIR was lodged.

PW 2, Chandrapal, was the victim himself. He disclosed that he was planting chillies in his village when Netrapal, who was the sala of his cousin brother, arrived there. Netrapal asked Chandrapal to accompany him to Netrapal''s sala''s sasural. Chandrapal agreed to the proposal because he had to purchase chilli plants from Dhantoria near Kasganj. Netrapal suggested that they leave the next day. On the next day Netrapal met Chandrapai at Sikrari bus stand, which was near Chandrapal''s village and field. Chandrapal also met Natthoo at the bus stand, whom Netrapal described as his relative. Netrapal brought Chandrapal to Etah from Sikrari. Natthoo was also there and they met another person whom Netrapal also described as his relative. He told Chandrapal to proceed with these persons and that he was proceeding to get a taxi for bringing his sala''s wife. Netrapal sent Chandrapal along with Natthoo and the third person to Ganjgudwara by bus. From Ganjgudwara they proceeded to village Bahwas where there was a paith (a rural market) by a tonga. The third person left while Natthoo remained with him. When Chandrapal asked Natthoo to proceed, he replied that they would wait for Netrapal to arrive. By then the sun was setting. Then the third person again returned. They said that they should proceed after easing themselves. After that the three persons had eased themselves. Then about 4-6 miscreants carrying country-made pistols etc. arrived there. They caught hold of Chandrapal, Natthoo and the third person. They gave two slaps each to Natthoo and Chandrapal and left them. They tied a muffler around Chandrapal''s eyes saying that he was the only moneyed person and the others were poor. The miscreants beat him badly and asked the other two persons to drown Chandrapal in the Ganges. They tied up his hands and made him proceed for 2 to 3 hours through fields, and left him in a wheat field. He was kept for 3 to 4 days in fields and bushes. In this period, the miscreants made him write a letter demanding ransom of Rs. 3 lakhs from his family. The day when he was rescued some village women had come to the field for gathering grass. On seeing Chandrapal with the miscreants the women abused me miscreants and one of the women left for her home and informed the pradhan that there were miscreants in the field. Then the villagers assembled and came there and caught hold of the miscreant Natthoo. The other miscreants ran away. Chandrapal was found tied in a blanket. He was then released from it and his blindfold removed and the ropes on his hands untied. The villagers carried him on their back. The miscreant Natthoo was also taken to their village. From Natthoo, a knife and a country-made pistol were recovered. The appellants arrived at the village and Natthoo along with his arms and ammunitions was handed over to the police by about 50 villagers who went to the police station. He could not identify the other miscreants because his eyes were blindfolded. At the police station, Chandrapal was handed over in the supurdagi of his grandfather. At the time when he was recovered, there was exchange of fire between the villager and the miscreants. Natthoo fired at Chandrapal, which missed him.

PW 3, Dinesh, resident of village Nawabganj, Nagaria, is the third witness of fact. He deposed that on 11.2.2000 at about 4 pm when he was working in his field and Nem Chand, Rampal, Ballister, Gurudatta and others were working nearby, Gurudaka called them and told them that Ballister had disclosed that some miscreants were present in Mukhtiyar''s field carrying arms. Gurudatta, Rampal and others then reached Mukhtiyar''s field where they took shelter behind a ''patel'' (bush). They raised an alarm at the miscreants who started firing at them but they narrowly escaped the fire. Two miscreants were able to escape from the spot but the appellant Natthoo was arrested, and a knife, a country-made pistol, 3 live cartridges and one empty cartridges were recovered from him. On apprehension Natthoo disclosed that the absconding miscreants were Netrapal and Ramlal who had brought the abductee who was present in the field. Dinesh and others then rescued Chandrapal from the field. His eyes and hands were tied. He disclosed his identity. Natthoo disclosed that they had abducted Chandrapal for ransom and had got a ransom letter demanding Rs. 3 lakhs written by him. Chandrapal had also disclosed this fact and added that Netrapal had taken the ransom letter to his family members. After that the next day Dinesh and others brought Natthoo, along with the arms recovered from him, to the police station. There Gurudatta lodged a report and deposited the recovered arms. They handed over the appellant Natthoo and the victim Chandrapal at the police station.

Four formal witnesses of fact have been produced. PW 4 Dushyant Singh, was the SO, Shakrauli police station, who submitted the charge-sheet. PW 5, SI Narendra Kumar commenced the investigation of this case on 12.2.2000 when the report was lodged in his presence, as described earlier. PW 6, SI Rajkumar Singh, who was the SO of PS Shakrauli and who Commenced the investigation of the case on 23.2.2000 when the case was transferred to him as the abduction related to the jurisdiction of his police station, as described above. PW 7, CP Rakesh Babu, who was the pairokar of PS Sikandarpurvaish proved that the chik FIR (Ext. Ka 7) was prepared by the constable-clerk Bahadur Singh with whose handwriting he was familiar. CC Bahadur Singh also entered the report in the GD (Ext. Ka 8) and prepared the supurdginama (Ext. Ka 9) handing over the abductee Chandrapal to his relative.

In their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants have denied the incident and all the allegations against them. However, both the appellants have taken the plea that Netrapal had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000 from the bank for purchasing a Jugar vehicle. However, the abductee Chandrapal took away the said money from them, promising that he would get them a cheaper vehicle but he usurped the money. When they demanded the money from him, he had falsely implicated them.

It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there are discrepancies between the version given in the FIR lodged by Gurudatta Misra and the version given by the alleged abductee Chandrapal, PW 2 in court. In fact, Chandrapal in his cross-examination has even denied giving any evidence to the police or making any disclosure to the informant. Hence, the version of the kidnapping etc of Chandrapal is imaginary and concocted. We are not impressed by this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants. We think that a fairly natural version of the incident has been mentioned in the FIR lodged by the informant Gurudatta Misra who was a wholly unconnected person this witness was instrumental in the rescue of the abductee Chandrapal and the apprehension of the appellant Natthoo in village Nawabganj Nagaria which falls in the police station Sikandarpurvaish, when the abducted Chandrapal was a resident of village Jallukhera. PS Shakrauli and there was no reason for the informant or the other witnesses PW 3, Dinesh, to have invented such a story that after receiving the news that some miscreants were present in the field of Mukhtiyar in village Nawabganj Nagaria; they reached there and challenged the miscreants who fired at them but the fire missed them. Thereafter, two of the miscreants ran away whereas the appellant Natthoo was apprehended and he led Gurudatta and others to the field where the victim Chandrapal was tied up in a blanket with his eyes blindfolded by a muffler.

In that context, it was very natural for the victim Chandrapal to have made such a disclosure about his being abducted from his village by Netrapal and Natthoo and also his having made an allegation about being compelled to write a letter at the instance of the accused demanding a ransom of 3 lakhs to be handed over to his family members. The said details would not have found mention in the FIR which was lodged on 12.2.2000 nor would the name of the abductee''s village Jallukhera or the circumstances of his abduction from his village been mentioned in the FIR if no disclosure had been made by Chandrapal or if no extra-judicial confession had been made by the apprehended appellant Natthoo as there was no way for Gurudatta and others who were unconnected outsiders to mention all these details in their FIR. However, in our view, it appears that it is on account of some confusion that the informant has stated in his cross-examination that he gave no such version as mentioned in the FIR to Gurudatta or that he had not made any such disclosure to the police on the basis of which the report was scribed.

We think that Chandrapal has given such a statement in his cross-examination about his non-examination by the police only because the version contained in the FIR does not appear to contain all the details of the circumstances of his abduction. Thus, in his examination-in-chief PW 2 Chandrapal had stated how Netrapal, who was the sala of his cousin brother had approached him 7 days prior to his rescue from the field of Mukhtiyar in village Nawabganj Nagaria and asked him to accompany him to his sala''s sasural. Chandrapal had agreed to the proposal because he also wanted to purchase chilli plants from village Dhantoria near Kasganj, and he had himself gone to Shikrari bus stand the next day where he met Netrapal along with Natthoo. They had proceeded by bus to Etah where they met the third man who was unfortunately not traced by the police. Thereafter, Chandrapal. Natthoo and the third man proceeded to Ganjdudwara by bus whereas Netrapal had gone away supposedly to fetch a taxi for his sala''s wife. After Ganjdudwara, Chandrapal, Netrapal and the third man had proceeded to Bahwas on a tonga. At about sunset time, the three persons had eased themselves when four or six miscreants had arrived there and caught hold of the three persons. After that the miscreants had given a few slaps to Natthoo and the third man had blindfolded the eyes of Chandrapal and had belaboured him severely telling him that he was a rich person whilst Natthoo and others were poor persons. They had even asked Natthoo and the other person to drown Chandrapal in the river and then tied their hands and made him walk through the fields in the jungle for 2 or 3 hours placing him in a wheat field and they kept moving him around fields and bushes for 3-4 days. They had also made him write a ransom letter to his family members demanding a ransom of Rs. 3 lakhs. As there was some variation in this detailed version from the brief version which was mentioned in the FIR, hence this could have been a reason for Chandrapal denying that he had given such a statement as was mentioned in the FIR to the police. From this mere denial, it could not be inferred that Chandrapal hadinot been abducted deceptively.

In this context, abduction has been defined u/s 362 IPC as follows:

Abduction.- Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person, to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.

Therefore, an inducement by deceptive means to a person to go from any place means abduction. Hence, the initial contact with Netrapal, who deceptively asked Chandrapal to go along with him so that he could meet sala of his tau''s son, appeared to be such a deceptive act. Furthermore, this abduction was not of an innocent nature, as is apparent from the fact that at Bahwas four or six miscreants came and caught hold of Chandrapal, Netrapal and the third person Ramlal (who could not be traced out) and tied up Chandrapal''s eyes and hands and left the others, viz. Natthoo and Ramlal, move free, by saying that they were poor. Afterwards, Chandrapal was made to write a ransom letter to his family demanding Rs. 3 lakhs. It is obvious that all this was a part of the conspiracy to abduct Chandrapal initiated by Netrapal who was related to Chandrapal''s tau''s son and who had therefore succeeded in deceptively winning Chandrapal''s confidence.

The fact that Natthoo and the third man were also involved in the abduction is also apparent from the fact that when Chandrapal was recovered after 3 or 4 days, Natthoo was apprehended by the villagers of village Nawabganj Nagaria carrying a firearm, a knife and live and empty cartridges.

Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the ransom letter has not been produced, and there is no corroborative evidence that the ransom was ever demanded. Also, another discrepancy was pointed out by the learned Counsel that in the FIR and in the statement of PW 3 Dinesh, it was mentioned that after the miscreants got the ransom letter written by Chandrapal it was taken away by Netrapal for handing over to Chandrapal''s family, members, but Chandrapal himself has stated that the miscreants got the ransom letter written by him demanding Rs. 3 lakhs, but he did not state that he had handed over the same to Netrapal, and in fact according to Chandrapal he did not meet Netrapal after parting from him at Etah. We think that no importance can be given to this discrepancy. There is no reason for Chandrapal to give a version that he was made to write a letter demanding Rs. 3 lakhs as ransom by the miscreants which finds mention even at the stage of the FIR. No doubt there is some discrepancy as to whether Netrapal or the other miscreants got him to write the letter or whether Netrapal or the other miscreants took it from him to hand over to his family members, but even if the version given by Chandrapal in court, who is the victim, is accepted that the ransom letter for Rs. 3 lakhs was written by him on account of the threats of the miscreants, it would make no difference so far as the complicity of the appellant, Netrapal, is concerned. We have already shown above that it was Netrapal who engineered the entire plot and who deceptively took Chandrapal along with him and who placed him in the company of Natthoo and the third person whom Netrapal said was his relative and who then took Chandrapal to Bahwas where the 4 or 6 armed miscreants fell upon them. The link of Netrapal''s complicity is established by the fact that Nathoo whom Netrapal had introduced to the victim Chandrapal in pursuit of his conspiracy to abduct him, was apprehended at the time when the villagers of Nawabganj Nagaria rescued Chandrapal.

Learned Counsel also tried to attach some importance to the fact that there was no FIR by any family members of Chandrapal and the second investigating officer PW 6, SI Ramkumar Singh of PS Shakrauli, has clearly stated that on 23.2.2000 or earlier no member of Chandrapal''s family ever contacted him. Merely from this fact it cannot be inferred that Chandrapal was not abducted. It is quite possible that initially even the family members of Chandrapal, who was a grown-up man of 20 years, may have thought that he had gone away for some work as he intended to purchase chilli plants and later, as is often the case in matters of abduction that the family members of the abductee do not rush to the police for fear of threat or danger to the life of the abductee. There is no reason whatsoever for Chandrapal to have invented the story of abduction it indeed he had not been abducted in the manner in the circumstances described by him. The abduction is corroborated by the fact that Chandrapal was found in the field of Mukhtiyar in village Nawabganj Nagaria, with his eyes blindfolded with a muffler and hands tied up with a rope and his body concealed in a blanket by the villagers of Nawabganj Nagaria which fell in PS Sikandarpurvaish and was quite distinct from the village of the abductee, namely, Jallukhera, in PS Shakrauli. Furthermore, the medical examination report dated 13.2.2000 shows the presence of injuries on the body of Chandrapal which is also corroborative of his abduction. We think that the suggestion of the accused that the whole story is false and has been invented only because Netrapal had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000 for a Jugar which money had been misappropriated by Chandrapal saying that he would get him a cheaper Jugar is too far fetched. The victim would not have been found in the condition that he was found with injuries on his person in another village Nawabganj Nagaria by persons belonging to that village if no incident of kidnapping had actually occurred and the story was concocted by Chandrapal only because he was avoiding returning back the money that the accused claimed he had misappropriated from them. The argument of the learned Counsel that as to why Mukhtiyar or the present pradhan of the village Brij Mohan or the chowkidar were not examined, is of no significance because these witnesses had little role to play in the incident and nowadays we find that unconcerned persons rarely involve themselves in disputes or come forward to give evidence in court and it is indeed quite creditable that Gurudatta Misra, PW 1, and Dinesh, PW 3, who belonged to another village. Nawabganj Nagaria. had bravely intervened in the matter, rescuing the victim Chandrapal, and had apprehended the appellant Natthoo and have come forward and given evidence in this case. There is, therefore, sufficient evidence to establish the complicity of the appellants in this offence.

A doubt, however, arises in our mind as to what would be the proper section under which the appellants should be convicted and whether the conviction u/s 364A should be maintained or whether the appellants could be convicted u/s 365 IPC, which does not prescribe a minimum sentence of life imprisonment, in view of the fact that no family members of Chandrapal have come to support the version of Chandrapal that he was abducted, or that any ransom was demanded from them, and that the ransom letter has not been produced in this case.

Section 365 IPC reads as follows:

Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 364-A IPC 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 any foreign State or international intergovernmental 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 live, and shall also be liable to fine.

Initially we felt that as in the present case it did not appear that the family members who would be in a position to pay the ransom were actually contacted by the accused who demanded ransom from them, and that at best it could only be said that the demand for ransom, if at all, had only been made to the victim concerned, who had been forced to write a letter, but he was not in a position to pay the ransom, hence the case could not. be said to have gone beyond the stage of preparation for obtaining ransom which is a sine qua non for application of Section 364-A IPC and that the appellants could only be held liable for kidnapping or abducting a person with the intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, which was punishable u/s 365 IPC with a maximum sentence of 7 years and fine only. A decision of the Delhi High Court bearing the same name as the present case: Netrapal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2001 Cri LJ 1669, had actually taken this view. In the aforesaid Netrapal''s case it was observed that for attracting the provisions of Section 364-A IPC it is required to be proved that (1) the accused kidnapped/abducted the victim, (2) kept him them in detention after such kidnapping and abduction and (3) the kidnapping or the abduction was for ransom; and in that case as the ransom demand was not conveyed to the father of the victim, it was held that the intention to demand was not fulfilled. Unfortunately however, the said case of the Delhi High Court has been distinguished in the decision of the apex Court in Malleshi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2004 SC 4865, wherein it was pointed out that the demand for ransom could even be made to the person abducted if he had been threatened with threats of hurt or death or given a reasonable apprehension that he would be put to death or hurt unless some other person paid up the ransom demanded. It was also a case where the initial abduction was by deceitful means as in the present case. It was pointed out by the apex Court in the aforesaid decision of Malleshi (supra) that Netrapal''s case decided by the Delhi High Court related to a child who was kidnapped. The demand for ransom could not have been made to the child and the demand to pay the ransom could only be made only to his guardian. However, if the abduction was of an adult person, even if it was conveyed to the victim that a certain amount had to be paid for his freedom it was sufficient, and it could not be said that the demand for ransom must necessarily be made to the person who will have to ultimately pay. By way of an illustration, the case of a rich businessman, who may have been abducted, was cited. He could be told that for his release his family members would have to pay a certain amount of money but the money actually belonged to the person abducted. According to the apex Court in Malleshi after making of the demand, even if the demand could not be conveyed to some other person as the accused was arrested in the meantime, it would not take away the case out of the purview of Section 364-A IPC.

That being the position, as the demand had been conveyed to the victum that his family members would have to shell out Rs. 3 lakhs for his freedom for which he was made to write a letter, in spite of the fact that there was no evidence about the said demand being ever conveyed to his family members we are left with no option in view of Malleshi''s case to sentence the appellants under any provision other than Section 364-A IPC for the offence of abduction. No interference is called for as regards the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court to the appellants under the other provisions wherein they have been convicted.

In this view of the matter, we affirm the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court to the appellants. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.