P. Liaquat Ali Khan vs State Of A.P

P. Liaquat Ali Khan ...Appellant

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool found the accused

appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment for life.

1

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

P.W.1 is grandfather and PW-2 is father of the victim minor girl-

Keerthi. PW-7 is their driver. PW-3 is maid servant, PW-5 is the class

teacher of Nursery class and PW-6 is Principal, of Sri Lakshmi English

Medium School, Kurnool. Keerthi aged about 3 years was studying in

Nursery class of the school. On 03.7.2001 at about 8.30 a.m., PW 7 dropped

the girl at the school and at about 8.45 a.m, one person came to her class,

informed PW 5 that parents of the child forgot to give syrup to her and on

his request, the girl was sent with him to administer the same. After noticing

that the child has been carried away by him, PW 5 instructed PW 3 to stop

him. The said person did not stop though cautioned by PW 3 and so, she

asked PW 8, who was coming by scooter, to stop that person. When PW 8

stopped him and enquired about the matter, the said person informed that he

was taking the child for administering syrup and saying so, he boarded a bus

and went away. Thereafter, PW 3 went to the shop of PW 4 and enquired

from him who also informed her about the taking away of the child by the

said person. Later, PWs 3 and 5 went to PW 6 and informed about the

incident to her, who in turn informed about the incident to the parents of the

child. The parents came to the school, searched for the child in N.R. Peta

area of Kurnool and surrounding places. PWs 3 and 5 narrated the physical

2 features of the kidnapper. PW-12 registered the case on the basis of Ex. P1

-report and PW 13 took up further investigation.

On 4.7.2001, Ex. P2. - letter demanding Rs. 1 crore for releasing the

child was received by PW l, who handed over the same to PW 13 in the

presence of PW 11 under Ex.P5 - panchanama. On 9.7.2001, another letter

addressed in the name of PW 2 was dropped in the house of PW 9 a

neighbour of PW 1, demanding Rs.75 lakhs with an instruction to keep the

amount in a bag and place it under a culvert situated after crossing Radio

Station on 10.7.2001, which was handed over to PW 13 under Ex. P6

-panchanama. On 10.7.2001 at about 12.30 p.m. on the instructions of PW

13, PW 2 placed a bag containing papers under the culvert. Mufti police

constables, PW 2, PW 13 and mediators were hiding in nearby throny

bushes around the culvert. At about 1.00 p.m. the accused came to that

place by a scooter, picked up the bag and when he reached the road mufti

constables surrounded and caught hold of him and on enquiry, accused

furnished his particulars. In pursuance of Ex. P 7- Statement, he led them to

Avanthi Nagar Street near House No 2-19-10-12 which was locked from

outside with a to let board. The accused opened the doors and led them to

rear side bathroom where the child was found. PW-2 identified the child.

3 Ex. P.8 is the said panchanama and Ex.P10 is rough sketch showing

topography of the house where the girl was confined. On requisition by

police, PW 10- Magistrate conducted test identification parade on

21.7.2001.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the

accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. To substantiate the

accusations, thirteen witnesses were examined and several documents

were exhibited and case properties were marked.

The trial Court held the appellant guilty. In appeal High Court

declined to interfere.

3. The basic stand in the present appeal was that contents of Exh.P2 and

P3 were not proved to have been written by the appellant and if that aspect

is not proved the question of kidnapping for ransom does not arise as there

was no evidence to show that the accused demanded any amount. It was

also submitted that Section 364-A had no application.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported

the judgment.

4

5. It is to be noted that while granting leave it was restricted to the

nature of offence only. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

Section 364-A was introduced by Notification in the Official Gazette w.e.f.

3.12.1992 The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction shows

that kidnapping for ransom is relatable only to cases where intention was to

cause death or hurt and not to a case of this nature. The object of the

introduction has also been referred to in this regard.

6. Section 364-A deals with separate type of offence. The reasons for

introduction of the provision need to be noted. Sections 364, 365, 366 and

367 deal with various situations under Chapter XVI. Accused got written

Exts. P2 and P3 and his house is at a short distance from the house of the

victim. The accused's demand for ransom is involved and therefore Section

364-A has clearly application. The evidence on record shows that in terms

of the disclosure made by the accused the child was recovered. The accused

came near the culvert and picked up the bag containing money. The

prosecution case is that the place was indicated where the bag was to be

kept. As indicated above arrangement was worked out on 10.7.2001 and the

bag was put as indicated by the accused who came to collect the same.

5

7. Section 364-A 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 cause hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or a foreign State or international inter- governmental 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."

8. Section 364-A deals with separate type of offence where ransom is a

distinguishing feature. The demand of ransom has been clearly established

and the role played by the accused has been analysed by the trial Court and

the High Court. We find no infirmity in the present appeal to warrant

interference which is accordingly dismissed.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 17, 2009

6 7