VINOD versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1141 · Decided: 24-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1S.C.R.1141 
A 
VINOD 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 165/2008) 
B 
JANUARY 24, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s. 364 A - Kidnapping of boy aged 9 years for ransom -
Conviction u/s. 364 A and sentence of life imprisonment by 
courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for -
Prosecution clearly established commission of offence of 
kidnapping - Legislature prescribes stringent sentence for 
kidnapping - Sentence/sentencing. 
D 
s. 364 A -
Kidnapping for ransom -
Necessary 
ingredients - Stated. 
ss. 359 and 362 -
'Kidnapping' and 'Abduction' -
Distinction between. 
E 
Words and phrases: 'Demand' - Meaning of. 
According to the prosecution case, PW-2-son of PW-
1, aged 9 years was kidnapped for a ransom of Rs. 10 
lakhs. On the fateful day, when PW 2 did not return from 
F play, PW-1 lodged an FIR. After few days, PW. 4 and S 
apprised PW-1 that Y had received a call for ransom of 
Rs. 10 lakhs from the abductors for release of PW 2 and 
also apprised the manner in which money was to be paid; 
and that the police was not to be informed otherwise PW-
G 2 would be killed. PW-1, PW-4 and S arranged the ransom 
amount and the first and last notes were initialed as 'MM' 
,.. 
by PW 1. Then as instructed by abductors, Y took the bag 
... ..._ 
containing currency not.~s in the car and brought back 
PW 2 and handed him over to PW 1. PW-2 narrated the 
H 
1141 
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1142 
entire incident of kidnapping to PW 1. Thereafter, on basis A 
of disclosure made by PW 2, police apprehend the 
accused. On the disclosure statement made by the 
accused, ransom amount was recovered from the place 
indicated by them. Y was also apprehended and part of 
the ransom amount was recovered from him. All the B 
accused were charged under section 364A IPC. 
Prosecution witnesses were examined. On evidence of 
victim PW-2, PW-1 and PW-3, the accused were found 
guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court 
upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
c 
l 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Section 364 A IPC refers to both 
'Kidnapping' and 'Abduction'. Section 359 defines 
'Kidnapping'. As per the said provision there are two types 
of kidnapping i.e. (1) kidnapping from India; and (2) D 
.. 
kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Abduction 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 E 
compulsion or inducement must be the going of the victim 
from any place. The offence of abduction is a continuing 
offence. [Paras 15, 16 and 18] [1153-A, B, C & D] 
1.2 The Section 364-A provides punishment for 
kidnapping, abduction or detaining for ransom. To attract F 
the provisions of section 364-A what is required to be 
proved is (1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the 
person; and (2) kept him under detention after such 
kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping 
or abduction was for ransom. [Paras 18 and 19] [1153-E G 
& F] 
.. 
... 
1.3 The word 'demand' means 'to claim as one's due', 
'to require'; 'to ask relief'; 'to summon'; 'to call in Court'; 
"an imperative request preferred by one person to another 
requiring the latter to do or yield something or to abstain H 
1143 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A from some act;" "an asking with authority, claiming." The 
definition would show that the demand has to be 
communicated. It is an imperative request or a claim made. 
[Para 20] [1153-G & H; 1154-A] 
B 
Black's Law Dictionary - referred to. 
1.4 When the evidence on record is analysed in the 
background of Section 364-A IPC, the inevitable 
conclusion is that the prosecution has clearly established 
commission of the said offence. Considering the alarming 
C rise in kidnapping young children for ransom, the 
legislature has in its wisdom provided for stringent 
sentence. Therefore, the High Court rightly refused to 
interfere in the matter. The impugned judgment of the High 
Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant 
interference. [Para 21] [1154-B & C] 
D 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 165 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2006 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 307-
E DB/2001. 
F 
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. 
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court w

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