MALLESHI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 15-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MALLESHI 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 
(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 364A-Abduction of son for getting ransom 
from father-Ransom demand conveyed to son but not to the father due to 
arrest of accused-Conviction by Trial Court upheld by High Court-On 
appeal, Held: Object of abduction was ransom and merely because the 
demand could not be conveyed to father, that did not take away the offence 
of accused out of purview of Section 364A-Penal Code, S. 362. 
Words and phrases-'Induce', 'deceit', 'ransom', 'demand'-Meaning 
of in context of Sections 362 and 364A of Penal Code, 1860. 
According to prosecution, while PW2 was coming out of his college 
along with his classmate PW-3 and friend PW-4, appellant-accused called 
and told him that he knew his father. Appellant enquired from PW2 
about fees and other expenses in the college stating that he wanted to 
admit his son, and accosted him towards a jeep parked nearby informing 
him that his son was there. PW2 went there and was asked to sit in the 
jeep. Appellant sat by his side along with three other co-accused. After 
the doors of the jeep were closed and it was driven for some distance, 
PW2 was threatened not to raise any voice otherwise he would be 
murdered. Enquiry was made from PW2 about phone number stating 
that his father will be asked to pay four lakhs of rupees for his release. 
On the way, however, PW2 was allowed to go for answering call of 
nature. He was accompanied by accomplice of appellant, and was also 
given water to drink. While the jeep was stopped near a village and 
accused got down for buying cigarettes, PW2 escaped. 
He went and informed villagers who came and caught hold of all 
the accused, and informed police about the incident. They were all taken 
to police station and complaint given by PW-2 was registered. During 
investigation, PW-3 and PW-4 stated that they witnessed appellant calling 
PW-2 and their going together towards the vehicle. According to 
prosecution PW2 was abducted from college by appellant along with 
441 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
three co-accused who were in the jeep during the course of the incident. 
During trial though PW-4 resiled from his statement, his evidence 
corroborated that of PWs 2 and 3 to the extent that he had seen PW-
2 going in the company of somebody towards the jeep. Trial court 
convicted appellant on evidence of PW2 and PW3 for offence under 
B 
Sec.tion 364A of Penal Code, 1860, while co-accused were acquitted for 
lack of evidence. High Court upheld the judgment of trial court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Appellant contended that since demand was not conveyerl to father 
of PW2, the intention to demand was not fulfilled. 
Respondent-state contended that in view of the clear language of 
Section 364A IPC it was evident that appellant was rightly convicted 
under that section. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Factual position found by the trial court and High 
Court goes to show, the object of abduction was for ransom. This was 
clearly conveyed to the victim PW-2. He was even conveyed the amount 
to be paid. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the courts below to 
warrant any interference. [447-D; 448-A] 
2.1. Section 364A of IPC refers to both 'Kidnapping' and 
'Abduction'. Latter 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 pla~e. The case at 
hand falls in the second category. (446-C, D] 
2.2. To 'Induce, means to 'lead into'. Deceit according to 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, question that arises is whether he was acting in a bona 
fide manner. [446-E] 
Black's Law Dictionary, referred to. 
L 
3. It cannot be laid down as a straight-jacket formula that the 
MALLESHI v. STA TE [PASAYA T, J.] 
443 
demand for payments has to be made to a person who ultimately pays. . A 
After making the demand to the kidnapped or abducted person merely 
because the demand could not be conveyed to some other person, as the 
accused is arrested in the meantime, does not take away the offence out 
of purview of Section 364A IPC. It has t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.