LexVIKAS CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1076 VIKAS CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & 'ANR. (SLP (Crl.) No. 8628 of 2009) AUGUST 11, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - s. 364A - Abduction for ransom - c Victim killed - Ransom calls made even after the death of the victim - Held: Offence uls. 364A does not stand abrogated upon death of the victim - Continuation of ransom calls made even after the death of victim, converts the offence into a continuing offence uls. 472 Cr.P. C. - Code of Criminal o Procedure, 1973 - s. 472. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Applicability of the Act - Offence u/s. 364A /PC - Continuous ransom calls - Held: The relevant date- for determining the age of the accused would be the last date on E which ransom call was made - On facts, the accused was not a juvenile on the date when the last call was made - Thus, the Act not applicable - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 364A. It was alleged that petitioner-accused and the co- F accused abducted the son of the complainant. They committed murder of the victim and even after his death, kept on giving phone-calls to the parents of the deceased demanding ransom money. During trial, at the stage of recording of the evidence, G the petitioner-accused moved an applicatiol), for transferring his case to Juvenile Justice Board, on the ground that at the time of commission of the offence, he was a juvenile. The application was dismissed. In H 1076 VIKAS CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & 1077 ANR. Revision, High Court remanded the matter to trial court. A On remand also, the trial court held that the petitioner- accused was not a juvenile on the date of the offence. The Revision Petition against the order was allowed by High Court. B The trial of the petitioner-accused was separated and transferred to Juvenile Justice Board. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court, whereby it had transferred the case of the petitioner-accused to Juvenile Court and remanded the matter to trial court for deciding C the issue in the light of s. 472 Cr.P.C. The trial court held that the offence of murder coupled with abduction could be considered to be a continuing offence; and that the last date on which the ransom call was made, would be the relevant date from D which the age of the petitioner-accused was to be counted to determine the applicability of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Revision Petition against the order was dismissed by High Court. In the instant Special Leave Petition, the questions E for consideration were: whether making of ransom calls, even after the death of the victim, was a· continuing offence as to attract provisions u/s. 364A IPC; and whether Juvenile Justice Act is applicable to the case of F the petitioner-accused. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is not correct to say that the offence u/ s. 364A IPC stood abrogated upon the death of the G victim. The continuation of ransom calls being made, even after the death of the victim, converts the offence into a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 472 Cr.P.C. [Para 18] [1086-E-F] H 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A 1.2 In the instant case, the main object of the offence committed by the accused was to extort money from the parents of the deceased victim by way of ransom, even after the death of the victim, as is evident from the subsequent phone calls made, asking for ransom. The B offence u/s. 364A IPC did not come to an end only on account of the death of the victim, since ransom calls had been made even though the victim had been killed. [Para 17] (1086-B-C] 2.1 It is true that if the initial date of abduction is taken C to be the date on which the offence u/s. 364A had been committed, as an isolated event, the petitioner would have been a minor within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. However, if the date on which the last ransom call was D made, is taken as the date on which the aforesaid offence was committed, then the petitioner would have ceased to be a minor and the Juvenile Justice Act would not apply to him. [Para 17] (1086-C-D] E 2.2 If Section 364A IPC and Section 472 Cr.P.C. are read together, it is evident that even after the death of the victim, every time a ransom call was made, a fresh period of limitation commenced. Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.