LexAKRAM KHAN versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 459 AKRAM KHAN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2011) DECEMBER, 05, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss. 364-A and 120-B - Kidnapping of a minor boy for c ransom - Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for fife awarded by trial court, affirmed by High Court - Out of three convicts, one filing the appeal - Held: From the evidence of the witnesses, it is clearly established that the accused persons, particularly, the appellant, kidnapped the minor boy 0 of the complainant, demanded ransom from him for release of the child and also threatened that if the demand was not met his son would be killed -The High Court was right in maintaining the conviction and the sentence and its judgment does not suffer from any infirmity- Sentence/Sentencing. SENTENCE/SENTENCING: E Sentence uls 364A I PC - Object of - Held: The statement of objects and reasons introducing s.364A in the !PC makes it clear that cases relating to kidnapping for F ransom is a crime which cailed for a deterrent punishment, irrespective of the fact that kidnapping had not resulted in death of the victim - Considering the alarming rise in kidnapping of young children for ransom, the legislature in its wisdom provided for stringent sentence - Therefore, in such G cases no leniency is to be shown in awarding sentence, on the other hand, it must be dealt with in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on the courts as well - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 364A. 459 H 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. · A The appellant along with 7 others was prosecuted for kidnapping a minor boy (PW 2) for ransom. The prosecution case was that on 17.3.2000, PW 2 was found missing from his house in the city of Calcutta. His father (PW 3) reported the matter to the police the same day. B Later on, PW 3 received telephone calls from unknown persons demanding a ransom. The callers went on demanding the ransom from different places. In the night of 13.4.2000, a raid was conducted by the Calcutta Police along with the help of the Bihar Police and they arrested c five accused including the appellant from Bhagalpur in Bihar and PW 2 was rescued from the house of one of the accused. Subsequently, one accused, who was an ex-employee of PW 3, was arrested in Calcutta. Two more persons were arrested thereafter. The trial court 0 convicted seven accused u/ss 364A and 120-B IPC and sentenced them, inter alia, to imprisonment for life under each of the two counts, but the sentences were made to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence cf four accused including the appellant and acquitted the remaining three on E benefit of doubt. Aggrieved, the appellant alone filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1 The specific charge against the appellant accused is for offences punishable u/ss. 364-A and 120- B IPC. If it is established that the offender after kidnapping a person keeps the said person in detention or threatens to cause death or hurt to such person in order to compel any other person to pay a ransom, G undoubtedly, s. 364A is attracted. [Para 8) [466-E-G] H Ma//eshi v. State of Kamataka, 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 441 = (2004) 8 SCC 95; and Vinod vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (1) SCR 1141 =AIR 2008 SC 1142 - relied on AKRAM KHAN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 461 1.2 The prosecution case relates to kidnapping of a A minor boy, from his lawful guardian (PW-3), and then keeping him in detention. Thereafter, the appellant and other accused persons, started giving threat calls in order to extort huge amount of money from the father of the kidnapped boy and also threatened him that in the event B of his failure to respond to such ransom calls, the boy in custody would be murdered. The victim himself was examined as PW-2. He wcls a student of Class IV at the relevant time. He being a child witness, the trial Judge, after satisfying his capacity to depose, accepted his c evidence to the extent that he was kidnapped and detained in a house and the appellant made telephone calls demanding ransom and also threatened PW-2 on various occasions. [Para 11] [467-F-H; 468-F-G] 1.3 The other witness is PW-3, the father of the victim D boy. He not only disclosed how his minor son was taken by the accused persons including the appellant and kept in a far away place in ord
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.