LexSHYAM BABU & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1020
A
SHY AM BABU & ORS.
v.
.,_,,
,_ ... :.-:
STATE OF HARYANA ' ;.;: ·Y::::
{Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2006)
B
NOVEMBER 11, 2008.
[D.K. JAIN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 323, 325, 342, 364A, 384 and.
506 /PC rls s. 1208 /PC:
.. '
C
Kidnapping for ransom - Kidnapping of 4~ years old sqn
of complainant in her presence due to personal rivalry
between A5 and father of the victim - Trial Court found all the
accused persons guilty of committing offences u/ss.323, 325,
342,364A, 384 and 506 /PC rlw s.1208 /PC and sentenced
D them to life imprisonment - Affirmed by. High Court -
Correctness of - Held: Kidnapping was done in broad day
light - Complainant had seen the accused persons clearly
and correctly noted down the registration No. of the van used
in the kidnapping of her son - She not only identified all the
E accused persons except A5 in the Court bu{ also deposed
their individual action - Presence of injury on her body
materially corroborated the prosecution story that she was not
only over powered but also assaulted by the accused persons
...: Her evidence ;ound sufficient to connect all the accused
F persons in the crime -
Nothing found in the cross-
examination of PW2, an independent witness, which would
shake the substratum of the prosecution story- Evidence of.
PW3, another independent witness, found trustworthy as he
had seen A5 from distance of three paces while boarding the
G van in which other 4 accused persons alongwith the kidnapped
boy were sitting - Hence, prosecution evidence rightly
believed by Courts below in convicting the accused persons
- Evidence of witnesses - Trustworthiness.
Kidnapping of young boy in the presence of mother for
H
1020
-·
).._
SHYAM BABU & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
1021
..
ransom with threats to life - Conviction uls.364 or 364A -
A
Held: Since ransom note clearly shows threat to the life of the.
child in case ransom money was not paid, accused liable to
be convicted for committing the offence punishable uls.364A
/PC.
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day·, one
B
'8' lodged an F.l.R. in the police station about kidnapping
of her s'on from her residence by five persons. The
accused persons allegedly took the child away in a white
coloured Maruti Van. When she tried to stop them, they c
gave her fist blows and tied her hands and feet with cloth
and bolted her inside the room while taking away her son
in a Maruti Van, and while departing, they also threw a
riote inside the house demanding Rs.5 lacs as ransom
money for the return of the child and also threatened to
kill the child in case police was informed. Somehow, she
D
managed to free herself and informed the police about
the occurrence; that occurrence had also been witnessed
by her neighbour 'R'. On the basis of her statement, F.l.R.
was registered in the Police Station. Police investigated
into the matter, seized the. van, arrested the accused
E
persons and recovered the child. Since accused persons
A 1, A2 and A3 refused to join the identification parade,
their handwriting. samples were taken for examination.
After completion' of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted by the Police against the accused persons for
F
committing the offences punishable under Sections 325,
323, 342, 364A, 384 and 506 r/w s.1208 IPC. Trial Court
accepted the case of the prosecution in toto and
convicted the accused persons A 1, A2, A3, A4 and AS for
committing the offences punishable under Ss.323, 325,
G
342, 364-A 384 and 506 r/w s.1208 IPC. Appeal filed by
:'
the convicts against the order of the trial Court was
dismissed by the· High Court. Hence the present appeal
filed by all the convicts except A2.
On behalf of the appellants, it was inter alia
H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
· [2008] 15 S.C.R.
__..
A contended that the identity of A-1 and A-3 was not
established, while A-5 was implicated out of the earlier
rivalry; that it was not possible for the mother of the victim
to identify the accused, who had overpowered her; and
that the evidence of mother' of the victim, as also the
B other witnesses, was not reliable at all.
Di~missing the appeal, the Court
.
.,
>-
HELD: 1.1. The complainant had identified A-4, who
had shown knife to hqr child and gagged his mouth. She
c identified A-2 as the other person. She also deposed that .
she had seen a Maruti Van bearing Registration No. ODD-
436, parked nExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.