SUMAN SOOD @ KAMAL JEET KAUR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 14-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'~ 
SUMAN SOOD @ KAMAL JEET KAUR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
MAY 14, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.) 
B 
~ 
Constitution of India-Article 33-Penal Code, 1860--Sections 120A, 
1208, 343, 346, 353, 364A, 365, 420, 468 & 471-Explosive Substances Act, 
1908-Sections 4 & 5-Extradition Act, 1962 as amended by Extradition c 
(Amendment) Act, 1993-Section 21-Accused, husband and wife, irrvolved 
in kidnapping-Accused were arrested and extradited from outside the country 
and were charged for offences of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping for ransom 
and wrongful confinement-Trial court corrvicted and sentenced both the 
accused for the charged offences and acquitted the accused-wife of offence 
of kidnapping for ransom-High Court confirming the corrviction and sentence D 
of the accused and rc:versing the order of acquittal of the accused-wife-
T 
Correctness of-Held, on evidence on record, the prosecution has proved 
) 
beyond all reasonable doubt the charges framed against the accused except 
for the offence of kidnapping for ransom by the accused-wife-Hence, order 
of acquittal passed by the trial court upheld-Terrorist and Disruptive E 
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. 
Appellants-accused, husband and wife, were involved in kidnapping of a 
politician's son to seek release of one of their members of a terrorist 
organization. The victim was kidnapped in a car and held captive in the house 
of the accused for some days before he was released. Both the accused were F 
arrested from United States of Ameri,~a and were extradited to India, for 
commission of offences under sections 343, 346, 353, 364A, 365, 420, 468, 
471, 120A and 1208 IPC and for offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 
of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Trial Court convicted and sentenced 
the appellant-husband under sections 364A, 365, 343 r/w 1208 and 346 r/w 
1208 IPC and the appellant-wife under sections 365 r/w 1208, 343 r/w 1208 G 
and 346 r/w 1208 IPC and acquitted her of offence under section 364A r/w 
1208 IPC. The appellants preferred appeals before High Court being 
"r 
aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence. The State also filed an 
appeal against the order of acquittal of the appellant-wife under section 3.64A 
49<) 
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A r/w 1208 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants and 
allowed the appeal of the State by reversing the order of acquittal of the 
appellant-wife. 
In appeals to this Court, the appellants contended that they could not be 
prosecuted under section 364A IPC since there was no reference of the 
B offence in the Extradition Order; that the prosecution failed to prove beyond 
reasonable doubt the kidnapping of the victim was for ransom for conviction 
of the offence under section 364A IPC; and that the prosecution did not prove 
that the accused were in possession of the house or the car in which the victim 
was kidnapped belonged to them. The appellant-wife further contended that 
<t the Extradition Order did not refer to the offence under section 365 IPC and 
hence conviction and sentence under section 365 r/w 1208 IPC was illegal; 
that there was no evidence against her as to criminal conspiracy; and that 
the High Court erred in convicting her for kidnapping for ransom under 
section 364A r/w 1208 IPC. 
D 
The respondent State contended that the order of conviction and sentence 
recorded by the High Court needs no interference; that, in the Extradition 
Order, express reference was made to section 364A IPC and hence no 
objection can be raised against trial of the accused under the said provision; 
and that there was sufficient evidence of kidnapping and also for ranso-m. 
:q 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is Final Judgment of Certification of Extraditability 
which was in the nature of judgment, order or decree expressly granting 
extradition of the accused for various offences alleged to have been committed 
by them. Section 364A IPC has been mentioned explicitly in the judgment. It, 
F therefore, cannot be successfully contended that the appellants-accused could 
not have been prosecuted and tried for an offence punishable under section 
364A IPC. [Paras 24 and 27] [511-D, HJ 
1.2. It is well settled that if the accused is charged for a higher offence 
G and on the evidence led by the prosecution, the Court finds that the accused 
has not committed that offence but is equally satisfied that he has co

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