CRIMINAL LAW- II PROJECT

KIDNAPPING (YEAR 1992-2015)

INDEX

Index................................................................................................................................................2

Conceptual & Definitional Understanding..................................................................................4

Offences against custody and security.........................................................................................4

1. Kidnapping from India..................................................................................................6

2. Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship........................................................................7

3. Taking or Enticing.........................................................................................................8

4. Out of the keeping of a lawful guardian......................................................................11

5. Punishment for kidnapping.........................................................................................12

6. Kidnapping for Ransom..............................................................................................13

7. Geeta and Sanjay Chopra Kidnapping case................................................................15

Review of Literature....................................................................................................................17

Missing Children In India: Suggestions, Remedies And Solutions....................................17

Kidnapping Incorporated: The Unregulated Youth Transportation Industry And The

Potential For Abuse....................................................................................................................17

The New Normal: Coping With The Kidnapping Threat...................................................18

International Child Abduction and effects..........................................................................18

Parental Child Abduction: The Long-Term Effects............................................................19

Kidnap and Ransom Today.................................................................................................19

Kidnapping. The Crime Backs down on Its Demands, J. R. Spencer, The Cambridge Law
Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Apr., 1979), pp. 9-10...........................................................................20

Kidnapping for the Purpose of Robbery, By Arlo E. Smith. Source: California Law
Review, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Dec, 1952), pp. 920-924......................................................................20

The Power of Political Voice: Women's Political Representation and Crime in India.......21
 Kidnapping, Sex Offences, Assaults and the Role of the Victim's MISTAKE...................21

Research Methodology................................................................................................................22

Objectives..................................................................................................................................22

Research Questions....................................................................................................................22

Hypothesis.................................................................................................................................22

Chapterization............................................................................................................................22

Sources.......................................................................................................................................23

Mode Of Citation.......................................................................................................................23

Chapter I: CASE BRIEFS..............................................................................................................24

1992-1995..................................................................................................................................24

1996-2000..................................................................................................................................28

2001-2005..................................................................................................................................32

2006-2010..................................................................................................................................44

2011-2015..................................................................................................................................56

Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................70

1. Age And Sex.......................................................................................................................70

2. Rape....................................................................................................................................73

3. Murder................................................................................................................................74

4. Ransom...............................................................................................................................75

5. Judgment Trend..................................................................................................................76

6. Final Acquittal/Conviction/Fine.........................................................................................78

Chapter III: GENERAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................79

Annexure.......................................................................................................................................81
 CONCEPTUAL & DEFINITIONAL UNDERSTANDING

OFFENCES AGAINST CUSTODY AND SECURITY

Section XVI of Indian Penal Code is concerning offenses impacting the human body. Offenses
relating to kidnapping, abduction, subjection and obliged work are secured under this part.
Kidnapping is in this way an offense relating to human body.

Section 359 to 369 of the Indian Penal Code have made kidnapping and abduction chargeable
with fluctuating level of reality as showed by the nature and gravity of the offense. The
concealed question of establishing these courses of action is to secure the individual opportunity
of nationals, to give true blue protection to posterity of young age from being captured or lured
for uncalled purposes and to shield the benefits and rights of parents and guardians over their
wards for care or adolescence.

Kidnapping

The word kidnapping have been gotten from the word kid 'meaning tyke and resting' to take. In
this way kidnapping truly implies tyke taking. Furthermore, the word ruffian initially (amid the
seventeenth Century) intended to connote one who stole youngsters and others to give workers
and workers to American ranch. In the expressions of Sir Hari Singh Gaur:

At customary law the term kidnapping comprises of taking and diverting, or discharging any
people, whether in a similar nation, or by sending him far from his own nation into some other,
or to parts past the oceans whereby he is denied of the benevolent help of the laws to recover
from such capavity. The offense of kidnapping is an exasperated type of wrongful constrainment
and is accordingly, an offense in which every one of the components of that offense are
essentially present. It is in any case, imprisonment of such a genuine frame, to the point that the
code regards it as particular offense. Yet, kidnapping does exclude the offense of wrongful
constrainment or keeping in control of a grabbed individual. As per Section 359 IPC.
Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction

The terms kidnapping and abduction are now and then utilized conversely, furthermore they are not
fundamentally unrelated but rather there is a touch of contrast between the two, i.e. Abduction is the point
at which somebody utilizes double dealing or constrain as a part of request to remove a man or a
youngster from their home or relatives. Kidnapping is taking endlessly or mightily transporting a man
without wanting to and holding them in false detainment, a constrainment without lawful power.
Essentially abduction when its without the learning or against the will of gatekeeper or relatives while
kidnapping is the point at which its against the casualty's will.

Merriam Webster characterizes "abduction" as, "to seize and take away (as a man) by compel." In lawful
definition, the casualty knows or has some kind of connection with the abductor. The casualty can be a
minor or a grown-up. The most widely recognized case of abduction can be in separation cases wherein
one parent is given the full care of the tyke. Here, the individual who snatches is not holding the
individual for benefit or any money related pick up from the casualty. While Kidnapping is accomplished
for a rationale or for ransom, "Kidnapping" is characterized as, "to seize and keep or divert by unlawful
constrain or extortion and regularly with an interest for ransom." That's the essential contrast amongst
kidnapping and abduction.

Kidnapping is of two kinds1:

1. Kidnapping from India2

2. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship

There are a few circumstances in any case, when these two sorts cover each other. Kidnapping under
Indian correctional code is not kept to kid taking. It has been given a more extensive essence as
significance diverting of an individual against his or her assent or the assent of some other individual
legitimately approved to give assent in the interest of such individual.

1 Section 359, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2The words British India have bee subs by the A.O. 1950
1. Kidnapping from India

According to the section 360 of Indian Penal Code, Kidnapping from India meansWhoever passes on
any individual beyond the points of confinement of India without the assent of that individual, or of some
individual lawfully approved to assent for the benefit of that individual is said to kidnap that individual
from India. Section 360 IPC characterizes kidnapping from India and section 363 IPC endorses discipline
for the offense. For an offense under this section the casualty might be a male or a female, whether major
or a minor and independent of his nationality.

This offence consists of the following ingredients:

1. Conveying of any person beyond the limits of India

2. Such conveying must be without the consent of that person

Conveying without consent- The word convey actually implies essentially going together on a trip put in
mainstream speech, it now implies conveying a man to his goal. Consequently the offense would not be
finished until the individual really comes to a remote domain as well as to his goal too. Simple conveying
of a man starting with one place then onto the next is not criminal. The demonstration gets to be criminal
in the event that he is conveyed without his consent. It is what provides for the demonstration its key
component of crimnality. A man might be so conveyed as much by utilizing power or by instigating him
to give his consent by extortion and trickiness. Likewise, a consent, loses its crucial components on the
off chance that it is given under dread or coercion, in which case it is submission and not consent.
2. Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship

According to Section 361 IPC

Whoever takes or entices any minor under (sixteen) 3 years of age if a male, or under-(eighteen) 4 years
of age of a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such
minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or
person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation- The words lawful guardian in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the
care or custody of such minor or other person.

Exception- This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be
the father of an illegitimate child or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful custody of
such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

Object and Scope- Section 361 IPC makes kidnapping from lawful guardianship of a minor under
sixteen years of age, if a male, and under eighteen years of age, if a female. 5 This section also protects a
person of unsound mind from being kidnapped from the lawful curator. The provisions contained in the
section 361 IPC correspond to section 55 of (English Statute) Offences against the Person Act, 1861
which makes abduction of an unmarried girl a statutory offences. This section is designed to protect
minors and persons of unsound mind from exploitation and to protect the right and privileges of parents
and guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their wards. Thus, the consent of the parent or
guardian would alone take the case out of the purview of the section.

Ingredients- The following are essential ingredients of this section.

1. Taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind.

3Subs by Act 42 of 1949, Sec 2, for Fourteen

4Subs by Act 42 of 1949 sec 2 for sixteen

5Before 1949 the prescribed age for minor males was 14 and females 16 years. In 1949 vide the
Indian penal code and code of criminal procedure (Amendment) Act XLII of 1949 the age was
enhanced to 16 to 18 for males and females respectively.
2. Such minor must be under the age of 16 years, if a male or under the age of 18 years, if a female.

3. The taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of
unsound mind.

4. The taking or enticing must also be without the consent of the guardian.

3. Taking or Enticing

The gravity of the offense of kidnapping lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the predetermined
age out of the keeping of the legitimate guardian, without the consent of such guardian. On a plain
perusing of this section the consent of the minor, who is taken or tempted is completely unimportant; it is
just the guardians consent which removes the case from its domain. Nor it is essential that the taking or
enticing must be appeared to have been by method for drive or misrepresentation. Influence by the
blamed individual which makes eagerness with respect to the minor to be removed from the keeping of
legitimate guardian would be adequate to pull in the section.

The word taking does not really suggest taking by constrain, and it is not affirmed just to utilization of
compel, real or helpful. It simply intends to bring about to go, to blackmail to get into ownership. The
mental state of mind of the minor is not applicable throughout taking. Thus, where the blamed brought the
minor with him whether she was eager or not, the demonstration of taking was finished and it added up to
removing from the father's guardianship within the meaning of this section.

Enticing is inciting a minor to go to her own agreement to the kidnapper. It includes the possibility of
instigation by energizing trust or yearning in the other. One doesn't lure another unless the last
endeavoured to do a thing which the individual captured would not generally do Enticing implies that
while the individual abducted may have left the keeping of the legitimate guardian enthusiastically, still
the perspective that achieved that readiness more likely than not been incited or realized somehow by the
charged. In T.D. Vadgama V. State of Gujrat the blamed was in the propensity for going to a whore, and
there he met a youthful wedded young lady under the age of sixteen whom he tempted and afterward
conveyed her and kept her disguised from the spouse, the young lady having been as of now with the
whore, the charged couldn't be held to taken or lured her, and be sentenced kidnapping. In Dutta Pradhan
V State of Orissa the blamed snatched a youthful wedded lady from the legitimate guardian and without
wanting to, the demonstration would add up to an offense of kidnapping notwithstanding the fact that the
charged belonges with the kandha tribe in which one of the perceived types of marriage was that a young
fellow coercively takes away a young lady and later the marriage is solemnized with full consent of both
the families. By no extend of creative ability such a demonstration would sanction a wrongdoing of
coercively kidnapping a wedded lady from her legal guardian without wanting to.

The two words "take and entice" as utilized as a part of section 361 IPC are as one so that each takes into
some degree its colour and substance from the other. The statutory dialect recommends that if the minor
goes out totally uninfluenced by any guarantee offer or inducement emanating from the liable party then
the last can't be considered to have comitted an offence as defined in section 361.

R.V.A.6: In a recent English case, the court of criminal appeal held that if an individual was to be regarded
as taking a adolescent on the off chance that he brought about or prompted that adolescent to go with
him. The litigant A aged 38 years had an association with a 15 years of age young lady. On two events in
Jan and May 1998, she left with him, however was returned by the police. After the second, occurrence,
the young lady's mom told A that she needed her girl at home. The next month, A landed at the young
lady's home in the early hours of the morning of nineteenth June 1998. Her mom told A 'that he couldn't
take the young ladies away, and he reacted by saying that he didn't plan to do as such.

All things considered, later that morning he took her to London in his car, professedly in light of the
young ladys demand. In the wake of living unpleasant with An in his car for nine days, the young lady
was returned to her folks by the police. A was accused of taking a tyke less than 16 years old without
legitimate power or sensible reason to expel her from the legal control of a man having such control over
her, in contrary to section 2(1) (b) of the child abduction Act, 1984. Under section 3 (a) 7 of the 1984 Act,
a person was to be regarded as taking a child if he caused or induced that child to accompany him.At trial,
As counsel presented that there was no proof of taking as defined by section 3 (1) and that in like manner
there was no case to reply. The judge dismisses that submission and A was in this manner convicted and
sentenced to two years of detainment. On appeal, A battled that he had not taken the young lady within
the significance of section 2 (1) (b) because she wanted to go with him.

Rejecting the appeal, the court of Appeal said that for the reasons for sections 2 (1) (b) and 3 (a) of the
1984 Act, the respondent's demonstration did not need to be the sole reason for the tyke going with him,
rather,it was sufficient that those acts were an effective causes such as childs state of mind. A conclusion

6R.V.A. (2000) 2 All ER 177 (CA)

7Section 3 For the purpose of this part of the Act- (a) a person shall be regarded as taking a child
if he causes or induces the child to accompany him or any other person or causes the child to be
taken.
despite what might be expected would render section 3 (a) unworkable since by and large, the childs
consent was probably going to be a reason for the child going with the defendant.

Lawful Guardian- There is a difference between lawful guardian and legal guardian. A guardian may be
lawful without being a legal guardian. In Empress V. Pemantle 8 it was held that the expression lawful
guardian must be literally construed. A legal guardian is the guardian appointed by the law or whose
appointment is in consonance with the general law of the land and the person whose guardian he is.

A lawful guardian is a guardian whose custody is sanctioned by law. A legal guardian is necessarily a
lawful guardian, e.g. a school master or an employer is a lawful guardian and a parents of the minor is a
legal guardian. The expression lawful guardian would include a natural guardian, a testamentary guardian
appointed by the court, and a person lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of a minor. In this
section the guardian is described as lawful guardian and not as a legal guardian.

If a minor or lunatic is in the custody of the legal guardian, and he or she is taken or enticed out of the
custody of such legal guardian, it would obviously be a case of kidnapping. 9 If the legal guardian entrusts
in a formal way the ward to the care of another person, such of the person would also be his lawful
guardian.

8ILR (1882) 8 Cal 971

9State of Maharashtra V. H. Kisan Singh AIR 1954 Bom 339

4. Out of the keeping of a lawful guardian

Keeping implies inside the security or care of the guardian. In the event that a minor is not in the care of a
legitimate guardian, the section is not pulled in. The word guardianship has been given a more extensive
meaning. It doesn't really mean parents. A child strolling in the city out of the place of his guardian, say
father, is still under the guardianship of the father and enticing without end of such a child adds up to
kidnapping.

In Baldeo the blamed met a young lady matured around 14 years, who was living with a Brahmin lady in
the sarai of a town, where they kept up themselves on asking. The young lady was influenced by a
goldsmith named Ghosi and was hitched to his child. Yet, as she was not sufficiently given nourishment to
eat, she loaned herself to the influence of the charged to calm Ghasi's home and run with him for which
he was arraigned.

Subduing the conviction, the High court held that since ghasi from whose house the young lady was stole
was not her legitimate guardian, as he had not been legally depended with the care and authority of the
minor, the blamed was not subject for kidnapping.

The judgment needs a new look. The very reality that the young lady was married goes to demonstrate
that she was under the care and guardianship of her significant other. Be that as it may, if a minor deserts
the place of his or her guardian of his or her own particular accord and has no expectation of coming back
to the house, he or she can't be said to proceed in the keeping of his or her legal guardian.

In Nemaj chattoraj V. Ruler Empress it was held that the demonstration of taking is not a constant
demonstration and accordingly when once the kid or young lady has been really removed from the
keeping, the demonstration is finished.

In Vardargan V. State of Madras their lordship of the Supreme Court watched that:

There is a qualification amongst taking and permitting a minor to go with a man, the two expressions are
not synonymous; where the minor charged to have been taken by the denounced individual left her dad's
security knowing and having ability to know the full import of what she was doing willfully joins the
blamed can't be said to have removed her from the keeping of her legitimate guardian. Something more
must be appeared for a situation of this kind and that is some sort of incitement held out by the blamed
individual or a dynamic interest by him in the development of the expectation of the minor to go out of
the guardian.
Punishment for kidnapping

According to Section 363 IPC

Whoever kidnaps any person from 1*[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

The person against whom the offence is committed has to be under 16 years of age if male and 18 years
of age if female.10 A girl of 23 leaving her parents willingly to get married to a man cannot attract 363 or
366 IPC11. Also if the evidence is not enough to prove that the victim was by force taken away from the
lawful guardianship then the punishment cannot be awarded.

The punishment relating to kidnapping is at maximum 7 years plus whatever the fine the court deems to
be fit.

10 Ismail Sayadsaheb, (1933) 35 Bom LR 886

11 Oroos Fatima vs. Senior Supdt of Police, Aligarh, 1933 Cr LJ 1 (All)

5. Kidnapping for Ransom

Kidnapping for ransom is the most common type of kidnapping in India. India is working to become a
competitive market in the global economy; however, much of the country, including some parts of its
cities, is still marked by widespread poverty and a lack of strong state institutions. Such conditions can
cause some members of society turn to crime in order to improve their standards of living.

Section 364A of The Indian Penal Code states that- whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a
person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such
person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or
hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or 2[any foreign State or
international inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or
to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine.]

Kidnapping for ransom occurs in both urban and rural areas and does not constitute the growth of a new
industry in response to an influx of foreign investment and workers. The kidnappers, ranging from a few
nonprofessional criminals working together to actual organized criminal gangs, usually target locals who
have achieved relative economic success but cannot afford personal security protection.

Criminal gangs are generally the most competent kidnappers. They tend to target those with at least
moderate wealth in order to get the demanded ransom and have begun to increase the overall
effectiveness of their operations by engaging in preoperational planning and employing crews with
specialized skills. They often try to infiltrate the targets staff ahead of time or compromise a current
employee by exploiting his or her financial insecurities or feelings of loneliness in order to get
information or even enlist his or her aid.

To lessen exposure, many professional kidnapping gangs use middlemen who specialize in ransom
collection and have illegal fund-transfer channels to wire the money out of the country. These
professional rings are among the most difficult to catch.

Common gangsters and opportunity-seeking individuals are also involved in kidnapping for ransom,
although they operate with a significantly lower degree of sophistication than the organized criminal
groups. Nevertheless, these criminals can be just as vicious as the professionals -- if not more so -- since a
more professional crew might be reluctant to add murder to a kidnapping charge if they have not yet
killed anyone.
In recent years, the number of Kidnappings for Ransom (KFR) has increased globally. Especially for
Islamist terrorist groups in the Sahel, kidnapping has become a lucrative source of income. Switzerland is
engaged on the frontline of the struggle to establish a consistent code of conduct in handling cases of
KFR, which will also be an issue in 2014 when Switzerland will chair the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation (OSCE).
6. Geeta and Sanjay Chopra Kidnapping case

The case in hand has been one of the most known cases in the history of kidnapping cases in India.
The Geeta and Sanjay Chopra kidnapping case was a kidnapping and murder crime in New Delhi in
1978. It involved the kidnapping and the subsequent murder of siblings, Geeta and Sanjay, by Kuljeet
Singh (alias Ranga Khus) and Jasbir Singh (alias Billa). The children were kidnapped for ransom but on
learning their father was a naval officer, both were killed. Later, Geeta was allegedly raped before being
murdered, but forensic evidence could not confirm it. The kidnappers had initially admitted to raping her
but later retracted the statement. The two kidnappers were convicted and sentenced to death.
The execution was carried out in 1982.

The story got much media attention in India. Prime Minister Morarji Desai took personal interest in the
case.12 The Janata Party which was in power in 1978 Delhi was criticised for their handling for the case.
They even lost the subsequent election.13

There were retracted confessions from both the accused. Both of them pled not guilty and said that
evidences were planted upon them.

The duo, Kuljeet Singh (alias Ranga Kush) and Jasbir Singh (alias Billa) were convicted and sentenced to
death under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 (common intention), by
an additional sessions judge in Delhi. They were also convicted for various crimes under Section 363
(kidnapping), 365 (kidnapping with unlawful confinement), 366 (kidnapping a woman with intention of
sexual intercourse) and 367 (kidnapping with intention to cause hurt), read with Section 34.

The convicted challenged the death sentence verdict in the Delhi High Court. The High Court upheld the
judgement on 16 November 1979. The convicts then petition under Article 136 in the Supreme Court of
India, which was turned down. They then petitioned the President of India to use the clemency powers
vested in him under Article 72 of the Constitution. The President turned down the petition without citing
reason. They then petitioned the Supreme Court again arguing that the President should use his clemency
powers fairly. On 21 April 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentences. These petitions had
further delayed their death sentences. The trials took about 4 years in all to complete.

12 K. C. Brahmachary (2004). We and Our Administration. Mittal Publications. p. 160.ISBN 978-81-7099-916-4.

Retrieved 10 March 2015

13 "Rising crime graph worries BJP". The Hindu. 17 October 2003. Retrieved 10 March2015.
On 30 January 1982, five reporters, among them: Prabha Dutt of Hindustan Times, Prakash Patra of The
National Herald, and Usha Rai of The Times of India, were allowed to conduct the interview. The only
convict interviewed was Jasbir Singh alias Billa, who insisted that he was innocent. Ranga refused to be
interviewed.

Both were then hanged on 31 January 1982. Billa was quiet, but Ranga resisted going to the
gallows. Their bodies were not claimed by any of their relatives.

The impact of this kidnapping case was such big that the Kirti Chakra was awarded to the children on 5
April 1981and in 1978, the Indian Council for Child Welfare instituted two bravery awards for children
under the age of 16, the Sanjay Chopra Award and the Geeta Chopra Award, given each year along
with the National Bravery Award.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

MISSING CHILDREN IN INDIA: SUGGESTIONS, REMEDIES AND SOLUTIONS

Anil Malhotra and Ranjit Malhotra

The increase in the number of missing children in India and the need for a proper investigation in such
cases of missing children, who due to their age and gender are more vulnerable to crimes, has become an
alarming and a startling issue at the present time in India. A number of petitions have been filed before
different High Courts in the country seeking formation of separate investigation cells for the search of
missing children, involving officers having special knowledge and expertise in the matter. A news item
appeared on 25 December 2011 in the Indian Express (Chandigarh Newsline) titled, '943 missing since
2000, no sign of 54 abducted'. The news item was based on the data furnished by the police department of
the union territory of Chandigarh. The statistics reveal that 943 persons from Chandigarh have been
missing since 2000 and 54 persons who have been kidnapped since 2000 are yet to be traced. It has
become a prime concern for the entire country that certain guidelines and measures are laid down in order
to trace the missing children and to prevent an increase in the number of children missing or abducted in
future.

KIDNAPPING INCORPORATED: THE UNREGULATED YOUTH TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY

AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE

Ira P. Robbins

The youth-transportation industry raises important questions about parental authority, childrens rights,
and the tensions that exist between the two. These companies are third-party entities that transport
children to behavior-modification facilities. Typically when troubled children and teens are taken to
these facilities in the United States and abroad, parents are unwilling or unable to transport their children
themselves. These companies exist to remove and deliver the children efficiently and with minimal
resistance.

Youth-transportation companies are in business throughout the United States as well as internationally.28
Although often established by former law-enforcement and military personnel, many companies do not
require any specific background or training for their employees.29 Despite this lack of training, parents
delegate authority to these companies through a power of attorney. Typically, parents meet with the
transport companys representative without the childs knowledge and sign a contract that gives the
transporter temporary custody of the child in order to legally transport him or her to a facility, often across
state lines. These contracts and the rights conferred are executed independently of the state, with no legal
or judicial oversight outside of traditional contract law.

THE NEW NORMAL: COPING WITH THE KIDNAPPING THREAT

Global data on kidnappings among the general population are very soft. Accurate counts of kidnappings
are not kept in some of the places they occur most often: failed, fragile, and conflict-affected states. Not
surprisingly, many of the statistics on global kidnapping trends that are readily available, for example
from security and insurance firms, are un-sourced and/or extrapolated from a small number of country
cases. This makes it difficult to gauge global kidnapping trends with any rigor. An informal consensus,
gleaned from a literature review and interviews conducted for this report, seems to hold that the region
with the most kidnappings remains Latin America (driven by the drug trade as well as ideological militant
groups such as the FARC in Colombia), but that its proportional share is falling with the rise of
kidnappings in Asia and the Middle East/North Africa.

In any case, a global geographic analysis may have little practical use for individuals or organisations, as
patterns and motives can vary widely even within countries. For example, insurance providers
differentiate kidnappings done for political/ideological reasons (e.g., to secure the release of prisoners, or
to send a message) from those done for strictly monetary reasons. Both types can be found within the
same country, targeting different profiles of victims, and in different areas. Although many kidnappings
will have mixed motives, the more ideologically oriented ones tend to be of longer duration, involve more
complex negotiations, and often result in more harm to the victims.

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION AND EFFECTS

By: Marilyn Freeman for The reunite Research Unit Funded by the Department for Constitutional
Affairs

These insights give an indication of the motives that may lie behind the keeping of a child from the other
parent. Such actions may, of course, be protective and, in some cases, a persuasive case may be made for
so doing.29 However, in other cases, it is a misguided attempt to subvert the child and ensure the childs
whole-hearted support for the abducting parent. Those parents interviewed who had suffered this loss of
contact remember it vividly and with horror. The adults abducted as children remember it with guilt and
remorse. Many years after the abduction has ended the lack of contact appears to remain a live issue
with all those concerned, including the children, who revealed their regret regarding this issue during the
child interviews.

PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS

Professor Marilyn Freeman

The lack of specialist knowledge and support for abduction victims was a recurring theme in the
interviews. Where mental health professionals had been involved it was often the case that they had not
dealt previously with abduction cases and were not experienced with the specific issues raised in such
cases. As one interviewee stated, this makes it worse. Mental health professionals need to understand
the ramifications, consequences and effects of abduction in order to help those who have been through
this event. One interviewee explained the impact on abduction victims of this lack of understanding when
she said that people think this is a victimless crime and asked how can you recover from that?
Viewing abduction in this way means that there is no validation for the impact and effects of the
abduction suffered by the child. She supported this view by highlighting the difference in the ways that
society views stranger abduction and parental abduction. The former both terrifies and horrifies the
public, while the latter receives a far more equivocal reaction. This was endorsed by an interviewee who
said that society views parental abduction as being unimportant because they are with their parents.

She noted that nobody has invested the time in research to find out what the effects are for parental
abduction in contrast to the energy that goes into runaways and stranger abductions, the funding and
reporting for that is so much greater.120 She insisted that no matter how good the abducting parents
think they are it has some long term effects for the child, and commented that there should have been
counselling for her when she was seven years old so that I would not be sitting here now.

KIDNAP AND RANSOM TODAY

Catlin Asset Protection London

In land-based kidnapping, compared with piracy at sea, the ransom amounts are comparatively small, but
they can still stretch a family or small company to the limit. Most demands are in the thousands or tens of
thousands of dollars. Only a few cross the six-figure threshold, and still fewer exceed US$1 million. The
ransom, however, is just one part of the cost. There will be other expenses, increasing as an incident
continues. These can include consultancy and legal fees, travel and hotel expenses, interpreters, rewards
and the victims salary. They can add tens of thousands of dollars to the total financial impact unless paid
by a kidnap and ransom (K&R) insurance policy. A kidnap has the potential to cause serious damage to a
business by distracting management from their normal duties. Damage to company morale and reputation
are also potential consequences if an incident is not handled well, especially if the victim does not return
safely.

In insider kidnappings criminals pay domestic employees for keys and information to have easier access
to children and other members of the family, including the primary breadwinner. Express kidnapping. A
comparatively recent phenomenon, express kidnapping is essentially a prolonged robbery. Kidnappers
grab a victim and extort as much money as possible as quickly as possible. They may force the person to
withdraw their daily limit from an ATM, even perhaps holding the victim overnight to get more the next
day. The kidnappers may also take the victim home and demand that he or she hands over cash and small
valuables in the house. In some parts of Latin America, express kidnappings involving crooked taxi
drivers and their confederates are known as a millionaire tour (Paseo millonario).

KIDNAPPING. THE CRIME BACKS DOWN ON ITS DEMANDS, J. R. SPENCER, THE

CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 38, NO. 1 (APR., 1979), PP. 9-10

According to the author kidnapping is an aggravated form of false imprisonment. This article discusses
how the crime of kidnapping has evolved with the time. At first it was meant to denote the capturing of
people and secretly exporting them for sale abroad to work as slaves in the plantations. Then the need of
violence has been discussed for the offence of kidnapping. This article mainly points out two important
statements; firstly peaceful submission of victim to the arrest under a mistake induced by fraud also
amounts to fraud, secondly the offence of false imprisonment and kidnapping have close resemblance to
each other. But then the question is raised that whether such similarities are good or not.

KIDNAPPING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROBBERY, BY ARLO E. SMITH. SOURCE: CALIFORNIA

LAW REVIEW, VOL. 38, NO. 5 (DEC, 1952), PP. 920-924.

The debate between the various countries regarding the definition of kidnapping has been discussed. In
some countries it is called as seizing and carrying the person outside the country whereas in others it is
defined as an aggravated form of false imprisonment. Then a case defines kidnapping as Any act which
is accompanied by the movement of the victim amounts to kidnapping. In this article it is discussed how
the act of robbery turns into kidnapping. According to him a wilful and intentional detention for an
unlawful purpose against ones will amounts to kidnapping. Furthermore He criticizes the ratio of a
judgement which said whenever a person grasps another during an attempted robbery also amounts to
kidnapping. This article also talks about a test to determine the offence, which envisages that the act
should be done for the purpose of robbery.
 THE POWER OF POLITICAL VOICE: WOMEN'S POLITICAL REPRESENTATION AND CRIME
IN INDIA

By Lakshmi Iyer, Anandi Mani, Prachi Mishra, and Petia Topalova, American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics 2012, 4(4): 165-193

This article focuses on the issue of increase of crime against the women in the society. It relates the issue
to the lack of political representation being awarded to women. According to the author the significant
increase in the number of crimes is due to higher reporting of crime rather increase in the crime, which is
the result of increased political representation to women. Then the work highlights the importance of
reporting bias in the analysis of crime statistics, an issue that has so far been explored mainly in a cross-
country setting.

KIDNAPPING, SEX OFFENCES, ASSAULTS AND THE ROLE OF THE VICTIM'S MISTAKE.

By Rebecca Williams, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Jul., 2004), pp. 271-27

This article deals with the offences where the kidnapping has given rise to sexual assaults. The article
deals whether the carrying away by fraud amounts to carrying away without the consent. This article
mainly focusses on the presence of consent and what would amount to consent which would then
constitute an offence. The case of R v. D [1984] A.C. 778 has been considered which has defined
kidnapping. According to the author that fraud consists of two elements namely causation of mistake by
the defendant and some mens rea.
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this project is to do an empirical study on kidnapping cases in India and see the pattern
followed by the Supreme Court in deciding the cases related. Also to see what are the major reasons and
consequences of kidnapping and at what scale kidnapping is being committed in India and under what
sections.

Our study is limited in the way that we have only analyzed the cases of Supreme Court and have only
taken a time limit of 1990 to 2015.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

1 What are the different sections under which kidnapping is being committed?
2 How sex of the victim is a major reason for kidnappin?
3 Does age play a major role in kidnapping?
4 What are the recent trends in the sentencing pattern ijn kidnapping cases
5 What are the acquittal and conviction rates in kidnapping cases
6 How different are decisions given by Trial court High Court and Supreme Court?

HYPOTHESIS

H1. Ransom is the major reason for kidnapping

H2. In most kidnapping cases murder takes place

H3. Kidnapping of females generally ends up in rape.

H4. Children below the age of 10 are the most kidnapped.

CHAPTERIZATION

Chapter one talks about the recent cases and trend of judiciary in the cases of Kidnapping. Also it
gives the steps taken by the judiciary to reduce the crime of kidnapping by giving death penalty
as well as rigorous life imprisonment. Chapter two provides the data analysis of the cases of
kidnapping from the year 1992 to 2015. It divides the analysis by laying down different
parameters like cases if murder after kidnapping, rape after kidnapping, etc. And lastly chapter
three provides a general analysis of all the data.
 SOURCES

The sources referred under this project are both primary as well as secondary. The cases used are the
primary source, whereas books and other resources referred are secondary sources. The approach under
this project is analytical in nature.

MODE OF CITATION

A uniform method of citation has been followed.

 CHAPTER I: CASE BRIEFS

1992-1995

Shyam and another vs . State of Maharashtra14 ( 31 . 01 . 1995 - SC )

Facts: The two appellants were friends. They were young people at the time of the commission of the
offence in the year 1984. Out of them, Shyam, A-1 wanted to marry the prosecutrix, Lalita. He made a
proposal to her about two to three months prior to the occurrence which was spurned by her. On the day
of the occurrence, she was incidentally at the common tap for washing clothes and to fetch water back
home. The appellants riding their respective bicycles came at that time and at their asking she sat on the
carrier of the bicycle of Suresh. A-2 and Shyam, A-l followed that bicycle as if escorting. The prosecutrix
was taken to a room in the house of someone where she was made to perform a ritual signifying marriage
between her and Shyam, A-1. The mother of the prosecutrix finding the girl missing reported the matter to
the police and on its activation the prosecutrix was recovered from that room along with Shyam the
appellant.

Judgment: The charge against the appellants/ accused under Section 366, I.P.C. would thus fail.

Punishment: The appellants deserve acquittal. The appeal was, therefore, allowed acquitting the
appellants.

Observation: The girl had deposed that she was threatened right from the beginning when being
kidnapped and she was kept under threat till the police ultimately recovered her. Normally, her statement
in that regard would be difficult to dislodge, but having regard to her conduct, as also the manner of the
so-called "taking", it does not seem that the prosecutrix was truthful in that regard. In the first place, it is
too much of a coincidence that the prosecutrix on her visit to a common tap, catering to many, would be
found alone, or that her whereabouts would be under check by both the appellants/ accused and that they
would emerge at the scene abruptly to commit the offence of kidnapping by " "taking" her out of the
lawful guardianship of her mother. Secondly, it is difficult to believe that to the strata of society to which
the parties belong, they would have gone unnoticed while proceeding to the house of that other. The
prosecutrix cannot be said to have been tied to the bicycle as if a load while sitting on the carrier thereof.
She could have easily jumped off. She was a fully grown up girl may be one who had yet not touched 18

14AIR1995SC2169
years of age, but, still she was in the age of discretion, sensible and aware of the intention of the accused
Shyam, That he was taking her away for a purpose. It was not unknown to her with whom she was going
in view of his earlier proposal. It was expected of her then to jump down from the bicycle, or put up a
struggle and, in any case, raise an alarm to protect herself. No such steps were taken by her. It seems she
was a willing party to go with Shyam the appellant on her own and in that sense there was no "taking" out
of the guardianship of her mother. The culpability of neither Shyam, A-1 nor that of Suresh, A-2, in these
circumstances, appears to us established.

Radha Ballabh and Ors. vs. State of U.P.15 (04.05.1995 - SC)

Facts: The complainant Shyam Sunder, P.W. 1 son of Mohan Lal is a resident of Mohalla Chuna Kankar
in the city of Mathura. His son Lalit, aged about four years was during the relevant period a student of
Gyandip School alongwith other children of the family. He used to go to the School by rikshaw and return
by the same. On 26.9.1975 Lalit as usual had gone to the School with his sister and the cousins and
returned home at about 12.30 P.M. At about 3.30 P.M. mother of P.W. 1 informed that Lalit was not
traceable in the house and also he has not presented himself before the tutor who at that time was teaching
other children in the ground floor hall of the house. He got the information on 6.11.75 that P.Ws. 4, 5 and
10 had some knowledge of the facts relating to the kidnapping of the boy. P.W. 14 recorded their
statements which revealed that the child was kidnapped as a result of well-knit conspiracy. Accused Smt.
Basanti was on visiting terms with the family of the complainant. Two or three days later Badri Prasad,
P.W. 6 and Ram Ratan Pradhan, P.W. 7 saw the accused Bissu taking the same child on the motor cycle
towards Barsana. Thereafter the child was not seen in that Village.

Judgment: subject to the minor modification of the conviction of accused Bissu from under Section 386
I.P.C. to Section 387 I.P.C, all the other convictions and sentences awarded to all the appellants are
confirmed and all the appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Punishment: Imprisonment for life under Sec. 364.

Observation: No infirmity in evidences of witnesses and no inordinate delay in test identification parade
is no good reason to doubt any witnesses, therefore conviction upheld.

State of Karnataka vs. Sureshbabu Puk Raj Porral16(08 . 10 . 1993 - SC)

151995Supp(3)SCC119

16(1994)1SCC468
Facts: The prosecutrix Madhubala, P.W. 7, who according to the prosecution was aged about 15 years at
the time of occurrence, was residing with her parents P.Ws 1 and 5 Devar Hippargi Village. She is the
fifth daughter of P.Ws 1 and 5 and her four elder sisters were already married. At the time of a fare in the
Village, the accused asked P.W. 7 to accompany him to Bangalore to see the city. ON 30.12.76 P.W. 1 was
away and P.W. 2 was sitting in the grocery shop. P.Ws 5 and 7 were at home. At about 11 A.M. the
younger sister of the accused went to the house of P.W. 1 and asked P.W. 7 to go to the Bus Stand with a
view to go to Bangalore alongwith the accused. PW. 7 and the sister of the accused went to the Bus Stand.
The accused and P.W. 7 boarded a has and went to Bijapur and from there they went to Hubli on the same
day. They purchased some articles there. Thereafter they went to Ajanta Lodge and stayed there in a
double room. According to P.W. 7, on that night the accused did something to her which he ought not to
have done by force. However, both of them continued to stay at Hubli for 2 or 3 days and the accused had
sexual intercourse with her.

Judgment: Acquitted.

Observation: In respect of the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. the trial court relying on the evidence of
the Doctor who examined P.W. 7 regarding the age and also on a transfer certificate issued by the school,
held that she was below 16 years of age and therefore taking or enticing her away attracted the provisions
of Section 366 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted the accused. The trial court also held that it the time of
commission of offence of rape, she was below 16 years of age and therefore the act committed by the
accused accounted to rape irrespective of the fact whether there was consent or not. the High Court was
not wrong in holding that the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is not made out. Now, coming to the
offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 366 I.P.C., again her age is doubtful. That apart, P.W.7's
evidence shows that she went with the accused voluntarily, When the age is in doubt, then the question of
taking her away front lawful guardianship dies not arise. However, the second requirement that taking or
enticing away a minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of
kidnapping. In the instant case, we are not concerned with enticement. But what we have to find out is
whether the part played by the accused amounts to taking out of the keeping of the lawful guardian.

State of Madhya Pradesh vs . Sunder Lal17 ( 13 . 03 . 1992 - SC )

Facts: On 4.12.1979, the parents of PW-2 (Prosecutrix) had left for Chhindwara. PW-2 and other minor
children were left in the house alongwith servant Baban (PW-4). The house of PW-2 is situated in their
fields. During the night, the accused is alleged to have come there armed with rifle and forcibly took

17(1992)2SCC578
away the prosecutrix from her hut to some distance where he committed the offence of rape on her. The
cries of alarm raised by her attracted the servant Baban and other persons working in their fields.

Judgment: Acquitted. No application of Sec. 366.

Punishment: The accused had undergone two years' imprisonment prior to his conviction and that during
the pendency of this appeal, again he was kept imprisoned for about three years' under the orders of this
Court. It is submitted that the respondent has practically served the entire five years' sentence. Be that as
it may, in all the circumstances of the case, we reduce the sentence under both the above counts to the
period of imprisonment already undergone.

Observation: The learned Trial Judge accepted the testimony of PWs-2 and 4 and convicted the
respondent as stated above. On appeal, however, the High Court was of the opinion that there is no cogent
evidence regarding the identity of the accused. In the context of the fact that PWs- 2 and 4 had not seen
the respondent earlier, the High Court was of the opinion that a test- identification-parade was necessary,
which was not conducted.

Ganga Dayal Singh vs . State of Bihar18 ( 31 . 01 . 1992 - SC )

Facts: ardeo Thakur is the father of the minor girl. He and the appellant were doing potato business. On
the previous night, namely, intervening night on 11th and 12th September, 1969, the appellant came to the
house of P.W. 4 and the next morning he abducted the minor girl. She was seen being taken away by one
of the witnesses whose evidence was recorded in the Committal Court. The appellant and the complainant
P.W. 4 were together doing potato business; the accused used to go to the house of the complainant; in the
eventful night, the appellant stayed at the house of the complainant; in the morning the appellant was seen
taking the minor girl and thereafter the minor girl disappeared and her whereabouts are not known.

Judgment: Convicted under Sec. 366A.

Punishment: 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000.

Observation: These circumstances have been established conclusively from the evidence record. It is
contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant being aged about 55 years would not
have developed fancy for a minor girl and therefore, it is a false story that was concocted that he had
abducted the minor girl.

18AIR1994SC859
 1996-2000

Kuldeep K . Mahato vs . State of Bihar19 ( 06 . 08 . 1998 - SC )

Facts: It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.2.93 at about 1.00 p.m., Kiran Kumari -(P.W.3) -
Prosecutrix was going to a bazar for purchasing bangles. Kuldip Kumar Mahato on seeing her, asked her
as to where she was going. In the meantime, a tempo came from the opposite direction which was stopped
by Kuldip Kumar Mahato - the appellant and forcibly made the prosecutrix to sit in the said tempo. After
sitting in the tempo, Kuldip Kumar Mahato showed the knife to prosecutrix and threatened her to keep
quite. It is then alleged that they got down at Ramgarh and stayed there till 12.2.1993. It is then alleged by
the prosecution that during the night of 12.2.1993, Kuldip Kumar Mahato committed the rape on her
against her will.

Judgment: conviction of appellant for offence under Section 363 upheld but conviction for offence under
Section 366 and 376 set aside

Punishment: Sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 363
IPC

Observation: Conviction of appellant for offence under Section 363 can be sustained as there was
evidence that X was taken to certain destination by the appellant. Coming to the conviction of the
appellant under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the prosecutrix
was the consenting party and she had accompanied the appellant of her own will and, therefore, the
appellant cannot be convicted for the said offences. As far as conviction under Section 366 is concerned,
we find that the evidence of prosecutrix in the behalf is not conclusive. Her evidence does not indicate
that the appellant had kidnapped prosecutrix with the intention to marry with her against her will or in
order that she may be forced to illicit intercourse. These two vital ingredients for upholding conviction
under Section 366 are not proved and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 366 cannot
be sustained.

Mohan and Ors . vs . State of Tamil Nadu20 ( 12 . 05 . 1998 - SC )

19(1998)6SCC420
Facts: the accused persons entered into a conspiracy to get Rs. 5 lakhs as ransom from the father of the
deceased by kidnapping the deceased a young boy of 10 years old. In accordance with the plan accused
Pushparaj who was the driver of the car belonging to Singaravelu went to the school on 28th of June,
1993, at 12 noon where the deceased was studying and as soon as he met the deceased told him that his
father has been waiting for him at Meenambakkam and sent the car to take the deceased in the car. As
Pushparaj was their driver the deceased relied upon his words and got into the Maruti Van which had been
parked nearby. They contacted the father of the deceased and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs so that the boy would
be released otherwise they would kill the boy. The accused persons began killing the boy by tying the
boy's neck with a rope and pulling its both ends and closing the mouth of the deceased with a piece of
cloth. By this process they killed the deceased by strangulation. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased
was kept in the empty TV box and the box was dropped into an un-used well near a temple. Even after
killing the boy they contacted the father of the deceased Singaravelu to get the ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs and
ultimately succeeded in extracting a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from him on 4.7.1993 and divided the amount
among themselves.

Judgment: Convicted under Sec. 365.

Punishment: Death sentence awarded.

Observation: In Bachan Singh etc. etc. v. State of Punjab 21 etc., the Constitution Bench while upholding
the constitutional validity of imposition of death penalty for murder came to hold that it is not possible to
lay down standards and norms for imposition of death penalty as the degree of culpability cannot be
measured in each case; and secondly, criminal cases cannot be categorised, there being infinite
unpredictable and unforeseeable variations, and thirdly, on such categorisation, the sentencing process
will cease to be judicial; and fourthly, such standardisation or sentencing discretion is a policy-matter
belonging to the legislature beyond the court's function.

Vijender and Ors. Vs. State of Delhi22 1997

20(1998)5SCC336

211980CriLJ636

22(1997)6SCC171
Facts: Vijender, Devinder @ Bhinder and Mukesh Kumar, the appellants in these three appeals, were
placed on trial before the Judge, Designated Court No.111 (Karkardooma Courts), Delhi to answer
common charges Under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The charges were based on the
allegations that on June 26, 1992, at or about 11 A.M. they, in furtherance of their common intention,
kidnapped Khurshid Ali from village Johripur, within the jurisdiction of Gokalpuri police station, in a
Maruti car bearing registration No. DDB 5069 in order to put him in danger of being murdered; and after
committing his murder in the same night they concealed his dead body in village Danthala, within the
jurisdiction of Loni police station, to escape from legal punishment. Against Vijender and Devinder
separate charges Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1957 read with Section 5 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA') were also framed for illegal possession of country
made pistols and cartridges

Judgment: Acquitted.

Observation: Under Section 27 of the Arms Act on an allegation that he used to (sic) for the above
offence. If such an allegation was made Vijender could have been tried for kidnapping and murder and for
using the fire arm Under Section 27 of the Arms Act in the same trial as all the offences were part of the
same transaction. In absence of such an accusation, he could not have been jointly tried for illegal
possession of a fire-arm and ammunition on June 30,1992 with the offences of kidnapping and murder
that took place on June 26, 1992, in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 218 Cr.P.C. and non applicability
of Sub-section (2) thereof.

Kamta Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. 199623

Facts: On April 30, 1995 at or about 6 P.M. Parmeshwar had gone to a hair cutting saloon in the local
market along with his son Santosh (P.W. 4) and daughter Pinky. After Santosh and Pinky had their hair cut
they went out of the saloon to play outside while Parmeshwar stayed back for his turn. They then went
back to their house only to find that Pinky had not returned. Parmeshwar then went to the house of the
appellant but he was not available there. Accompanied by his wife and other two children Parmeshwar
then went in search of Pinky and in course of the search they met Hari Krishna Soni (PW 10) and
Subhash Chander Soni (PW 2) at or about 10.30 P.M. on a cross road near the shop of the appellant. All
three of them then went to Budhar Police Station at or about 1 A.M. and reported that Pinky was missing.

231996 SCR (5) SUPP 507

Judgment: This is a 'rarest of rare' cases where the sentence of death is eminently desirable not only to
deter others from committing such atrocious crimes but also to give emphatic expression to societies an
abhorrence of such crime.

Punishment: Death Sentence.

Observation: In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 24 this Court indicated, while discussing the sentencing
policy, the guidelines to be followed for imposing the extreme penalty of death. From the guidelines so
indicated this Court in its later judgment in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 25 formulated the following
propositions, which are to be applied when the question of awarding death sentence arises:

(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme
culpability;
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken
into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime;
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death
sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and
provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment or life cannot be
conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all
the relevant circumstances;
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing
so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be
struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised."

241980CriLJ636

251983CriLJ1457
 2001-2005

Malleshi v. State of karnataka

Facts: Vijayabhasker, was a student of S.J.M. College, situated on Hollakere Road in Chitradurga, and
was staying at Chllakere in his Uncle's house. He used to come to College dailywith his friend Jagdish.
On 25.11.1997 Vijayabhasker, Jagdish and their friend Raghavendra, came out of the college at about 2-
45 p.m. At that time, a person called Vijayabhasker, he saw that person was wearing white shirt and pant.
Vijayabhasker went to him and was told by that person that he knew his father. He enquired with
Vijayabhasker about the fees and other expenses stating that he wanted to admit his son. A Trax Jeep was
parked nearby. The said person took Vijayabhasker towards the Trax jeep informing him that his son is
there. Vijayabhasker was asked to sit in the jeep. Three other persons also came they closed the doors of
the jeep and it was driven towards Chllakere on N.H. 4. Thereafter he was threatened not to raise any
voice, otherwise he will be murdered. Then they enquired from him about the phone number stating that
they will ask his father to pay Rs. 4,00,000/-to them for his release. They stopped the vehicle near a
village and the accused persons got down for buying cigarettes. The drivers in the jeep asked him to run
away. He went and informed the villagers and got them near the jeep, they surrounded the said jeep,
caught hold the accused persons, informed to the police, Molakalmurnu. They were all taken to the police
station along with the said jeep.

JUDGMENT: 3 of the accused were released and 1 was convicted under section 364A of IPC.

PUNISHMENT: Life imprisonment to the one convicted.

ISSUE: Whether the present case attracts 364A or not?

OBSERVATION: The court in this case said that the findings by the lower courts clearly show that the
object for abduction was basically for Ransom. The court said this was also communicated to the victim
and was also told the amount to be paid. This cannot be used as the strait jacketed formulae that the
demand be made to the one who ultimately pays. 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 the purview of Section 364A. It has to be seen in
such a case as to what was the object of kidnapping or abduction. The essence of abduction as noted
above is causing to stay in isolation and demand for ransom. The demand in the present case has already
been made by conveying it to the victim.

Narain Singh And Anr. v. State Of Harayana

FACTS: In the present case the deceased and appellant 1 Narain Singh, are brothers. There was series of
litigations between them regarding some properties. On 4.5.1994, the deceased and his lawyer Mal Chand
Sharma had gone to Rewari to take possession of land over which deceased's title was declared. At about
9.30 a.m. they went to the Tehsil office, by a Jeep. Tehsildar asked them to come at 1.00 p.m. While they
were going towards Jeep which was parked across the road, all the four accused came in a Maruti Van and
forcibly put deceased in the car and took him away. Though one Khushi Ram tried to save the deceased,
he was assaulted by accused Hamir Singh. PW-15 immediately reported the matter to police and the
investigation was undertaken. Police officials went in search of the deceased who was found in old house
in village Bharawas. The statement of deceased was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.,
1973which was treated subsequently to be the dying declaration. He was brought to Rewari for treatment
and was taken to the Jeypore hospital but on the way he breathed his last in the afternoon. On completion
of investigation charge sheet was placed.

JUDGMENT: Appeal allowed and appellant acquitted.

ISSUE: Whether kidnapping and murder was committed?

OBSERVATION: It was observed by the apex court that there is no sufficient evidence against the
accused/appellant to prove that they committed the offence of murder or kidnapping under the Indian
Penal Code. But the accused were convicted for section 323/34 for giving injuries to Khushi Ram and the
appeal was ultimately allowed by the apex court in this matter. The apex court set aside their conviction
by the lower court.

Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde and Anr. v. State of Karnataka

Niranjan is the minor son of Sudhakar Kamat and was studying in St. Anthony's school.On 16.2.1989 at
about 4.00 p.m. when Niranjan was in his class, his friend Sachin informed him that somebody wants to
see him. Accordingly, Niranjan went out of his class room and saw A-1 standing near a motor-bike. He
told Niranjan that Dr. Prabhu who is Niranjans brother-in-law had asked him to take PW-3. Then he was
taken in his motor-bike as a pillion rider. After sometime A-2 joined them and they went towards the
forest. Thereafter, they went into a forest for about 2 furlongs. Then A-2 told him that he had lost his ring
and so saying he went to search for the lost ring. Niranjan became suspicious and insisted on going home,
he threatened him saying that there was a ghost in that place which made him to cry. At that time A-1
threatened him by showing a knife saying that he would stab him.

JUDGMENT: Appeal dismissed and high court decision upheld and convicted for kidnapping.
ISSUE: Issue was related to the credibility of evidences due to minor discrepencies.

OBSERVATION: It was observed by the apex court that Minor discrepancies cannot be termed as
contradictions unless it affects the credibility of the evidence tendered by a witness. Merely because some
of the witnesses are involved in criminal cases that may at the most warrant a close scrutiny of their
evidence but not total rejection. The High Court has as noted above analysed the evidence in great detail
and arrived at the correct conclusions. Unfortunately, the trial Court did not examine the evidence in
proper perspective. The intrinsic and probative value of the evidence was clearly over-looked by the trial
Court and, therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with the judgment of the trial Court. the
analysis done by the High Court is correct. That being so, the impugned judgment does not suffer from
any infirmity to warrant our interference.

Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam

On 30.3.1990 at about 8.30 p.m., Paresh Saikia lodged a complaint in Bebarapara police out post alleging
that his younger sister Bibi Saikia who was a minor (in support of his case he had produced her date of
birth as entered in school certificates) had been kidnapped by the appellant herein who was also a resident
of the same village. On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered and investigation was
initiated. In the course of the investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of as many as six witnesses
and on completion of the investigation a chargesheet under Section 366 IPC was filed before the trial
court. In the complaint filed he said that, she was seen in the company of the appellant in the locality. So
he went to the house of the appellant where he was not allowed to enter. However, he noticed there that
arrangements were made for performing a marriage ceremony. The victim was subjected to medical
examination and the doctor opined that she was below the age of 18 years. Victim (PW-2) herself has
stated in her evidence that on the relevant date when she had gone out to answer the call of nature the
appellant by force took her to his house where his mother and sister-in-law were present who made her
change her dress and put vermilion on her forehead and prepared her for the marriage with the appellant.

JUDGMENT: Convicted under section 361 and 366 of IPC by Trial court. Supreme court dismissed
appeal.

ISSUE: Enticement of minor to leave guardians house punishable as kidnapping?

OBSERVATION: In the present case the apex court said that if the appellant at some earlier stage played
the role of enticement which makes the minor leave the lawful guardians house then the appellant has
committed the offence of kidnapping also the apex court cited Varadarajans case which said the the same.
Also the apex court said that the appellant took undue advantage of his friendship and persuaded the
minor to abandon the guardianship with a promise of marriage which on facts of this case is sufficient to
uphold the judgments of thecourts below. And hence the apex court upheld the decision of lower courts
and dismissed the appeal.

Parmananda Pegu v State of Assam

FACTS: The appellant Parmananda and four others formed themselves into a group named as "All Assam
Tiger Force" and kidnapped and murdered the boys. Jitu one of these accused disclosed the facts above
and also took the police to the place from where the bodies of these children were accused.

ISSUE: Is appellant accused responsible for the kidnapping?

JUDGMENT: Acquitted after appeal and high court decision overruled.

OBSERVATION: The apex court in the present case said that the high courts conviction of the appellant
accused is not right since there has been no evidence found against him. Also the retracted confession has
no corroborative evidence with it. The court in judgment said the High Court fell into a serious error in
not considering the case of the appellant separately and also said that its miscarriage of justice if the
evidence against one accused is applied to another.

A.N. Venkatesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka

FACTS: A minor boy named Madhu left his house for going to his father's shop. When the father returned
home from shop in the afternoon, he enquired about his son. They waited for him till the evening. They
searched for the boy till the next day and after getting no trace of the boy filed a complaint of the boy
missing. Then they received a ransom call for Rs. 50,000. Later by tracing the call they went in search of
the boy and finally found the boy dead on the railway tracks and caught hold of the kidnappers.

ISSUE: Whether the missing complaint amount to criminal charges?

JUDGMENT: The trial court acquitted the accused on the missing complaint grounds but the high court
and Supreme Court convicted him.

OBSERVTION: The apex court in its judgment observed that Various circumstances in the chain of
events established, ruled out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The prosecution has
been able to establish that a complaint was lodged with the police of Madhu missing from the house, after
frantic search was made by the family members to find out his whereabouts.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar

FACTS: The convicted herein was given a sentence of 4 years and fine of Rs. 500 under section 366 of
IPC but that was reduced by the HC.

ISSUE: Should the sentence be reduced as done by the HC?

JUDGMENT: HC order set aside and original decision by trial court stands.

OBSERVATION: The apex court in this matter said the High Court without considering the gravamen of
the offence and the ignominy to which the victim has been put to with misplaced generosity/sympathy
which has an everlasting adverse effect on her future, has unreasonably reduced the sentence to a period
already undergone which is one month and 3 days. In our opinion this is a ridiculously low sentence,
totally disproportionate to the crime committed by the respondent.

Vishnu @ Undrya v. State of Maharashtra

FACTS: The accused was a friend of the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. The victim had gone to the
hospital to her father who was admitted. While returning the accused met her outside the hospital and
offered her lift she went with him as she knew him, the accused deceived her and took her into a hotel and
raped her there and then left her home.

ISSUE: Whether she was a minor or not and accordingly had she given consent?

JUDGMENT: The SC went with the judgment of the two lower courts and the decision of the HC upheld.

OBSERVATION: The apex court in the matter said the comments made by the Trial Court and the High
Court about the manner in which S.I. Bagal conducted the first investigation are well justified. In the
premises aforestated, we see no infirmity in the well-merited concurrent findings recorded by two courts
below. The appeals are dismissed.

State of M.P. v. Bala @ Balaram

FACTS: The convicted herein was given a sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs. 3000 under section 363,
366 & 376 of IPC but that was reduced by the HC.

ISSUE: Was the reduction of the sentence correct?

JUDGMENT: The apex court remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the
appeal.
OBSERVATION: the judgment of the High Court is not in accordance with law, we have no option but to
set aside the same and to remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the appeal.
The appeal preferred by the State of M.P. is accordingly allowed, the judgment and order of the High
Court is set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the High Court for a fresh hearing after issuing
notice to the accused respondent.

State of U.P. v. Satish

FACTS: The victim went to school and did not return on the usual time. On the next day morning her
dead body was found in the Sugarcane field of one Moolchand around 6.00 a.m. She was lying in a dead
condition and blood was oozing from her private parts and there were marks of pressing on her neck.

ISSUE: Is the evidence given by the prosecution enough to unerringly prove the guilt of accused?

JUDGMENT: The accused was convicted by the trial court, acquitted by the high court and then again
agin convicted by the apex court.

OBSERVATION: The apex court in this matter said Considering the view expressed by this Court in
Bachan Singh's case (supra) and Machhi Singh's case (supra) we have no hesitation in holding that the
case at hand falls in rarest of rare category and death sentence awarded by the trial Court was appropriate.
The acquittal of the respondent-accused is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. In the ultimate result, the
judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. The appeals are allowed.

Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi

FACTS: In this case, foreign nationals were kidnapped by a group of people. Out of which Umar Sheikh
was the main culprit who got escaped from the country. There are 6 accused who were tried in TADA
court. All were given 3 were given death penalty and 3 were given life imprisonment under 3(1)(i) of
TADA Act, Section 121A, 122, 124, 364A and 120B of IPC.

ISSUE: The appropriate sentence for the convicts?

JUDGMENT: Supreme Court ordered life imprisonment of 20 years to all the six accused and convicted
for all the offences but section 3(1)(i) was altered with 3(i)(ii) of TADA act.

OBSERVATION: The court said that there is no distinctive features to give two different sentences for the
accused. Also the court said The accused appellants would not be entitled to any remission from the
aforesaid period of 20 years.
State of Harayana v. Jagbir Singh

FACTS: Jagbir singh was accused of kidnapping and murder of a 4 year old child. He was convicted by
trial court on the basis of extra judicial confession, circumstantial evidence and handwriting similarity.
But high court denied the same.

ISSUE: Credibility of extrajudicial confession?

JUDGMENT: Supreme Court agreeing with high court and acquitted the accused.

OBSERVATION: The apex court said that as the evidence didnt bring the accusation beyond reasonable
doubt. The extra judicial confession was denied because the credibility of it being voluntarily was
questioned.

Jinish Lal Shah v. State of Bihar

FACTS: The appellant was convicted in Trial Court and High Court under 366 and 376 of IPC. The
appellant was said to have forcefully taken the girl to his house. She was forced there to sign some papers.
The age of the girl was also in dispute which was settled as girl was considered as below 18.

ISSUE: Regarding consent of the girl?

JUDGMENT: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquited

OBSERVATION: SC held that since the girl left the house on the same day when the appellant also made
a excuse of not coming to house. There was a implied connection between the two. The consent of the girl
regarding the marriage is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, appeal allowed.

Renuka Bai and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

FACTS: Appellant along with her mother used to commit theft and in order to get saved use children as
an instrument. They kidnapped 13 children out of which 9 were killed by them. The session and high
court convicted them under 366 and 302 and ordered death penalty.

ISSUE: Is the death penalty justified?

JUDGMENT: The death penalty imposed on them was upheld.

OBSERVATION: As there were no mitigating factor in favour of the appellant. Moreover, they were
menace to the society. Hence, the death penalty imposed on them was upheld
Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar

FACTS: Tara Muni Kumari, aged about 12 years, came out of her house to answer the call of nature. The
appellant at that time had forcibly taken her to his Gumti for committing illicit sexual intercourse with
her. Then thevictim raised alarm and her father and other people saved her

ISSUE: Is penetration necessary for application of 376?

JUDGMENT: SC convicted him under 366 and 354 of IPC.

OBSERVATION: SC held that since there was no penetration as the girl screamed which alarmed the
people and they came before anything could happen. To convict a person under 376, Penetration is
necessary.

Chatar Singh v. State of M.P.

FACTS: The appellant had kidnapped sons of the respondent and demanded ransom for the same. Later,
both were found dead. The prosecution was unable to establish that murders of the children were done by
the appellant only. Trial court convicted him under 364,120B and 201 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for 20 years was given. The same was upheld by the High Court.

ISSUE: The issue was regarding the reduction of sentence.

JUDGMENT: SC reduced it to 14 years as it was contradicting the Section 31 of CrPc.

Kalpana Mazumdar v. State of Orissa

FACTS: four appellants and Simanchal Padhi had kidnapped his nephew on 30th April, 1997 and
subsequently killed him. According to the FIR on 1st May, 1997 in the early morning while he had gone
out to attend the call of nature he observed that a person was bringing something on his shoulders and he
came towards the pond. The person was A3. PW7 caught him and an alarm was raised. People gathered
there. Some are named in the FIR. They found that A3 was carrying the dead body of the deceased and on
being asked he said that he has not murdered the child alone but some other persons were also involved in
the murder and he can identify them. He took all the persons to the house of A2 who finding A3 and
others threatened to assault everyone and his field servants also came with lathi and tangi. At that time
they came back but with the help of villagers they again went to the house of A2 and then found that there
is none in the house. In the prayer room of the house they found the nails of the dead child lying with the
blood as also the hair of the child. A3 told them that in the room the nail, hair and the tongue of the child
were cut and Simanchal Padhi offered prayers whereafter they took the child alive in the jeep of A2 to the
house of A1 where the child was murdered by holding his leg and hand and throttling his neck. Simanchal
Padhi, A1 and A2 told A3 that they will pay Rs.25,000/- to throw the boy. When he was throwing the boy
in the pond PW7 caught him red handed. After hearing this they all went to the house of A1. There
Simanchal Padhi "the tantrik" said that he had killed the boy and he can give life to him. He offered
prayers near the body for three hours and told everybody to wait but he failed to give life to the boy and
ran from the house. But he was caught with his associates and handed over to the police.

ISSUE: Are all of the accused responsible for the charges pressed?

JUDGMENT: Supreme Court reversed the Decision of High Court and Sessions Court and acquitted A-1,
A-2, A-4

OBSERVATION: a person cannot be held liable only on the basis of a testimony of one person. Though in
this P.W.-14 had seen and described the procedure of the kidnapping and murder of the 4 year old child.
But solely on his testimony it cannot be done. A-3 was charged of 364 and 302 of Indian penal code as he
was found to be carrying the dead body of the deceased and he confessed he same.

State of Rajasthan v. Laxman Singh and ors

FACTS: Laxman Singh and two of his friends came in truck and kidnapped him and bruised him very
badly after that one of the accused declared he would kill him. They took the deceased along with them.
Trial court found them guilty under section 364 and 302. The D.B of High Court allowed the appeal of
Respondents Partially by convicting them only for kidnapping.

ISSUE: Are they guilty for Sec. 302 of IPC as well?

JUDGMENT: SC set aside HCs judgment and upheld TCs judgment.

OBSERVATION: It is not disputed that most of the facts taken note of by the High Court were either
admitted or probabilised by the defence on the basis of the prosecution evidence. The settled position of
law is that this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not
normally interfere with the findings of the fact arrived at by the High Court particularly when it has
resulted in an acquittal, unless the judgment of the High Court is shown to be perverse, based upon no
evidence, and being the result of conjectures, surmises and imaginations. Merely because another view is
possible on the evidence led in the case, is no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal because with
the acquittal the doctrine of innocence of the accused gets strengthened with which this Court does not
interfere unless strong reasons are shown. As the view taken by the High Court is not highly improbable
or perverse, we do not want to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court.
State of Maharastra v. Laxmibai and Anr

FACTS: Nirmala was a 13 year old girl who was taken from her home by the accused. After 5 days
searching for the girl and finding it in the house of the accused, her family members filed a F.I.R against
the accused. Trial court convicted him under Section 34 and 363. But High Court acquitted the accused on
the basis that he took prior permission of her mother and there was no justification of the unnecessary
delay of the FIR.

ISSUE: Was there any kind of permission from mother and if yes is it enough to not take this set of facts
as kidnapping?

JUDGMENT: SC upheld HCs decision.

OBSERVATION: Merely because another view is possible on the evidence led in the case, is no ground to
interfere with the order of acquittal because with the acquittal the doctrine of innocence of the accused
gets strengthened with which this Court does not interfere unless strong reasons are shown. As the view
taken by the High Court is not highly improbable or perverse.

Tarun Bora v. State of Assam

FACTS: Bhola Kikati was kidnapped by Tarun bora due to his act of giving information to Army
regarding the ULFA extremist group. He was kidnapped in ambassador car with the help of three other
hands.

ISSUE: Is kidnapping violation of article 21 as well?

JUDGMENT: Tarun Bora was convicted by the apex court.

OBSERVATION: We are not at all persuaded by this submission. Human consideration is no ground for
showing leniency to the perpetrator of the crime against organized civilized society, which is abhorrent to
the concept of rule of law. In fact, this prayer has already been considered by the designated court and
lenient punishment of 5 years R.I. has been awarded. We may say that offence of kidnapping in any form
impinge upon human rights and right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Such acts not only
strike a terror in the mind of the people but have deleterious effects on the civilized society and have to be
condemned by imposing deterrent punishment.

State NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Anr.

FACTS: It was held by the Trial court that Sunil and Ramesh are liable for Kidnapping, Rape and Murder
of Anuradha under 302, 364, 376 and 377 of Indian Penal code and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
However, High Court reversed the decision by questioning on the credibility of the evidence.

ISSUE: Credibility of evidence?

JUDGMENT: Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court and convicted the accused though it
didnt discuss about the kidnapping.

OBSERVATION: The fact situation in this case does not justify any reduction of that sentence. We also
convict the respondents under Section 304 Part II, read with section 34 of the IPC though it is
unnecessary to award any sentence thereunder in view of the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded
to the respondents under the other two counts.

Raju v. State of Haryana

FACTS: : It was held by the Trial Court that Raju is liable for kidnapping, rape and murder of Rinku
under section 363, 302, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial Court ordered death punishment and
along with that 7 years Imprisonment and 3 years Imprisonment for Kidnapping. High Court upheld the
decision of the Trial Court.

ISSUE: Is this the rarest of rare cases?

JUDGMENT: SC reduced death sentence to life imprisonment.

OBSERVATION: It is true that learned Sessions Judge committed error in recording the evidence of SI
Shakuntala, PW 15 with regard to the confessional statement made to her, but in any set of circumstances,
evidence on record discloses that accused was not having intention to commit the murder of the girl who
accompanied him. On the spur of the moment without there being any premeditation, he gave two brick
blows which caused her death. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant was having any
criminal record nor he can be said to be a grave danger to the society at large. In these circumstances, it
would be difficult to hold that the case of the appellant would be rarest of rare case justifying imposition
of death penalty.

Puran Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar

FACTS: Both the accused had custody of the victim which they had in good faith

ISSUE: Knowledge of the crime is necessary

JUDGMENT: Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of Puran singh and Lakhbir Kaur

OBSERVATION: For convicting the accused under 366 and 366A of Indian Penal Code, requires
knowledge of the kidnapping. After that they can be held liable for the confinement of the victim. But in
the current case, Both of them were not aware that victim is not the wife of Narendra Singh but was
forcibly kidnapped.

Jhapsa Khabri v. State of Bihar

FACTS: Trial Court held Bhikhar Raut, Tahir Kabari and Tarni Prasad Singh were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code. ISSUE: Are they
responsible for kidnapping only or murder as well?

JUDGMENT: Convicted by apex court for kidnapping only.

OBSERVATION: They were not responsible for the murder of the child but they did kidnap the child so,
they were liable
 2006-2010

Vikram Singh and Ors . vs . State of Punjab26 ( 25 . 01 . 2010 - SC )

Facts: On 14th February 2005 the deceased Abhi Verma @ H 27arry, a boy aged 16 years and a student of
DAV School, Hoshiarpur, son of Goldsmith Ravi Verma (PW 27) was kidnapped at about 8,45 a.m. from
outside the school. An anonymous call was received in Police Station City, Hoshiarpur at 8.45 a.m. by
Sub-Inspector Nirmal Singh (PW 39), the SHO, and on its basis an FIR was recorded under Section 364
of the IPC referring to the kidnapping of a child from a place near "Shimla Pahari". Sub-Inspector Jiwan
Kumar (PW 43) of CIA Staff, Hoshiarpur also received information about the kidnapping on which the
police machinery was further activated. A short while later, that is at about the noon time, Ravi Verma
(PW) received a call on his landline telephone No. 226059 installed in his shop telling him that his son
had been kidnapped and in case he wanted him to return alive, he should pay a ransom of Rs. 50 Lac and
that he would be contacted later. Ravi Verma's request to the caller to permit him to speak with his son
was denied. Ravi Verma, greatly alarmed, went post haste to the school and was told that his son had not
come to class that day. This information confirmed his fear that his son had indeed been kidnapped for
ransom.

Judgment: The appeal of the other two appellants, however, is dismissed.

Punishment: Death sentence ought to be converted into one of life.

Observation: The learned Counsel have also placed reliance on Henry Westmuller Roberts v. State of
Assam28 and Mohan and Ors. v. State of T.N. 29 where the kidnap victim was a young boy and had
subsequently been done to death, the Court had awarded the death penalty.

Some of the judgments aforesaid refer to the ongoing debate as to the validity and propriety of the death
sentence in a modern society. There are the moralists who say that as God has given life, he alone has the

26(2010)3SCC56

272010)3SCC56

28 (1985) 3 SCC 291

29(1998) 5 SCC 336

right to take it away and this privilege cannot be usurped by any human being. There are others who
believe that the death sentence cannot be taken as a retributive or deterrent factor as the statistics show
that the possibility of a death sentence has never acted as a deterrent to serious crime. The theory which is
widely accepted in India, however, is that as the death penalty is on the Statute Book it has to be awarded
provided the circumstances justify it. The broad principle has been laid in Bachan Singh's case (supra) as
the "rarest of the rare cases". Bachan Singh case has been followed by a series of judgments of this Court
delineating and setting out as to the kind of matters that would fall within this category. In Machhi Singh
and Ors. v. State of Punjab30 this Court gave an indication as to what could constitute this category.

Baij Nath Sah vs . State of Bihar31 ( 29 . 04 . 2010 SC)

Facts: Four persons in all Parwati Devi, Prabhunath Sah, Baij Nath Sah, the appellant herein, and one
Surajdeo Misssir were brought to trial for an offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code for
having kidnapped Suman Kumari the minor daughter of Arjun Prasad on 24th June, 1984 from her home.
The fourth accused i.e. Surajdeo Missir died during the course of the trial.

Judgment: The appellant was acquitted.

Observation: The Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur and another, (1972) 3 SCC 280,
has held that a statement of Section 164, Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and can be utilized only to
corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in Court. In other words, it can be only
utilized only as a previous statement and nothing more. The Court saw from the record that Suman
Kumari was not produced as a witness as she had since been married in Nepal and her husband had
refused to let her return to India for the evidence. In this light her statement under Section 164 cannot be
used against the appellant. Even otherwise, a look at her statement Section 164 cannot be used against the
appellant. Even otherwise, a look at her statement does not involve the appellant in any manner. The
allegation against him is that after she had been kidnapped by the other accused she had been brought to
their home, where the appellant was also present. In other words, when she had been brought to the
appellant's home the kidnapping had already taken place. The appellant could therefore not be implicated
in the offence under Section 363 or 366A of the IPC de hors other evidence to show his involvement in
the events preceding the kidnapping.t does not involve the appellant in any manner.

30(1983) 3 SCC 470

31(2010)6SCC736
Vikas Chaudhary vs . State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.32 ( 11 . 08 . 2010 - SC )

Facts: On 18th January, 2003, one Shri Vimal Chadha, resident of C-2/46, Ashok Vihar, Phase II, Delhi,
filed a Missing Persons Report with the Ashok Vihar Police Station, Delhi, stating that his son, Parakh
Chadha, had left home and had not returned. The next day he lodged F.I.R. No. 34/03 at the Ashok Vihar
Police Station which was initially registered under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code on the
allegation that a call had been received from an unknown caller demanding Rs. 35 lakhs as ransom for the
release of his son. The body of Parakh Chadha, who was between the age of 17 and 20 years, was
recovered on the same day.

Judgment: Petition dismissed. No kidnapping.

Observation: Even after the death of the victim every time a ransom call was made a fresh period of
limitation commenced. Accordingly, it would be the date on which the last ransom call was made, i.e.,
11thMarch, 2003, which has to be taken to be the date of commission of the offence and, accordingly, the
Juvenile Justice Act was no longer applicable to the Petitioner, who had attained the age of 18 years by
then.

Manjappa vs . State of Karnataka33 ( 08 . 09 . 2010 - SC )

Facts: On 03.04.1997, Hanumanthappa, father of the victim, lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter
Shilpa, aged 13 years, was kidnapped by the appellants herein on 24.01.1997 at about 11.00 a.m. from his
house and they had taken her to Bombay with an intention to force her to have illicit intercourse and
thereafter, had sold the victim to Shanta (A-1) at Bombay for Rs. 5000/- for the purpose of prostitution
and for immoral purposes. On the strength of the said complaint, Kumarapatnam Police registered a case
in Crime No. 41 of 1997 and started investigation. On 24.04.1997, on receiving information about the
victim, the Investigation Officer had gone to Bombay along with the panch witnesses and the
complainant, traced out the girl and the appellants herein and returned to Kumarapatnam Police Station
on 27.04.1997. On the same day, the statement of the victim Shilpa was recorded and she was sent to the
C.G. Hospital Davanagere for medical examination. The appellants herein and Shanta were arrested on
27.04.1997 and charged for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373
read with 34 I.P.C.

32(2010)8SCC508

33(2010)9SCC334
Judgment: Convicted under Section 366A

Punishment: 7 years imprisonment with 50,000 fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Court shall impose deterrent sentence on accused for offence committed for immoral
purpose.

Observation: Section 366A relates to procuration of minor girl. As per the section, whoever induces any
minor girl under the age of 18 years to go from any place or to do any act, forces or seduces to illicit
intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and also liable to
fine.

Bantu v. State of UP

Facts: Bantu the accused in the case was caught red handed while trying to insert stick in the pubic area of
a 5 year old girl after raping her. Vaishali had already fainted. She was then pronounced dead when rushed
to the hospital.

Courts Observation: The case at hand falls in the category of rarest of rare crimes and entails capital
punishment.

Punishment: Death Sentence

Vinod v. State of Haryana

Facts: Amit, a young boy of 9 years, went to play with his friends but did not return back. Abductors
demanded a ransom of Rs. 10, 00,000 for the return of Amit which the family paid and thus got their child
back. On the basis of information given by little Amit police was able to apprehend those accused.

Courts Observation: As the prosecution had already established the commission of the offence of
kidnapping of a young child, the court was of the view that the judgement of High Court does not suffer
from any infirmity and does not deserve any kind of interference by this court. Thus the appeal was
dismissed and the judgement of the High Court was upheld.

Punishment: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000.

Badshah and Ors. v. State of UP

Facts: The deceased Suraj Pal Singh and three other people were sleeping in the fields where the
defendants came armed with guns and body lifted Suraj Pal Singh. Suraj Pal Singh was then never seen
by anyone.

Courts Observation: Court observed that since Suraj Pal Singh has not been seen since last 27 years so he
is presumably dead. Thus the accused can be safely held under the section 364 i.e. kidnapping to kill.

Punishment: Seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

Sannaia Subba Rao and Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Facts: Prabhavathi a student of inter, 1st year, B.H. Girls Junior College went to the college one morning
and did not return. She was then found after two months weeping under the bus shelter. Three people
were considered under suspicion.

Courts Observation: There was no evidence to prove that she was kidnapped for having illicit
intercourse. Accused 1 and 2 were acquitted of all charges while accused 3 was convicted for the offence
under section 363 IPC.

Punishment: Three years of rigorous imprisonment.

Mohan Anna Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

Facts: There was a quarrel between Tanaji Jadhav, the cousin brother of Neelam and Gauri, and the
accused Mohan Anna Chavan. Accused met these two girls at the grocery shop from where he asked them
to accompany him. Thereafter he raped them and murdered them. He threw the body of Neelam into the
well and that of Gauri was concealed in a Kalkache Belt after strangulation.

Courts Observation: Court said while deciding the question as to whether the extreme penalty of death
sentence is to be awarded, a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn
up. The case at hand falls within the category of rarest of rare category.

Punishment: Death Punishment

Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v. State of Maharashtra

Facts: The victim and her sister went to the bore well to fetch some water. The accused sitting nearby
asked the victim to accompany him to the hill where he would give her the fuel wood. She did not return
home afterwards. Dead body of the victim was then found lying on the Manmodya Hill.
Courts Observation: The case considered this case to fall under the category of rarest of rare offences.
The circumstances have established the depraved acts of the accused.

Punishment: Death Sentence.

Shyam Babu and Ors. v. State of Karnataka

Facts: Son of Smt. Bhawna was taken from her possession when she was coming back to her house with
her son from the school bus. She saw two men in the room. Two other persons were there in the van
which was standing outside the house. They snatched the child and forced him into the van. She was then
tied and latched up in a room.

Courts Observation: Honble Court said that the offence under S. 364A has been clearly made out. The
lower courts were correct in their decision. Thus the appeal was dismissed.

Punishment: Life Imprisonment

State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan @ Hemant Janardhan Wankhede

Facts: The victim was asked by the accused to come near the school with a bag. Then the accused took
her to many places and they had sexual intercourse. He was finally apprehended at Talegaon.

Courts Observation: Honble Supreme Court observed that High Courts observation that there is always
an error of one year in the documents submitted to the school does not have any rationale and thus it
deserves to be set aside. The judgement of the trial court is restored. Thus the appeal was allowed.

Punishment: 5 years of rigorous imprisonment

Basudeo Yadav Vs. Surendra Yadav and Ors

Facts: Vyasdeo Yadav had gone towards a school early morning for nature calls, where he was dragged
towards the river by the accused and others and subsequently killed.

Courts Observation: Supreme Court said that the basis for acquittal given by the High Court that there
was no direct evidence is not justified and is impermissible. Nowhere the High Court has said that the
judgement of the High Court was erroneous.

Punishment: 14 persons convicted and sentenced to various imprisonments.

Sarvsheel Mago Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Facts: Victim was on his way to the bazaar with her mother, where the four accused Pyaru, Nandoo,
Rajoo and Pentoo called her a prostitute and asked her to come with them to the nearby hotel. When she
refused they forcibly took him on a scooter and raped her. She was then dropped near the peepal tree in
the bazaar.

Courts Observation: Out of the 13 accused, 9 were convicted and the rest 4 were given the benefit of
doubt. As it was not sure regarding their involvement in committing rape.

Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar34 (Now Jharkhand) (29.09.2006 - SC)

Facts: The age of the girl was about 12 years forcibly taken by accused to his gumti. But before he could
do anything, she raised an alarm. Immediately thereafter, her father and other villagers gathered at spot
and accused and prosecutrix came out of gumti immediately thereafter the alarm. Hence, no offence
constituted under Section 376/511 made out.

Judgment: Accused convicted under Section 366/354.

Punishment: 5 years under Section 366 and to 2 years under Section 354.:

Observation: The essential ingredient imperative for of the offence to be punished under Section 366 IPC
is that when a person has forcibly taken a minor girl with the intention as specified in that section, then
the offence is clearly made out. In the instant case, the appellant at about 1.30 a.m. has forcibly taken the
prosecutor/victim to his Gumti with the intention of committing illicit intercourse then the offence
committed by the appellant would fall within the four forecorners of Section 366 IPC. The essential
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC are clearly present in this case. 35

The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under Section 366. In
considering whether an offence has been committed under this section, the volition, the intention and the

34Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006)8SCC560.

35Id
conduct of the woman are nihil ad rem except in so far as they bear upon the intent with which the
accused kidnapped or abducted her.36

Gagan Kanojia and Anr. vs. State of Punjab37 (24.11.2006 - SC)

Facts: The two children went to take private tuition in the house of one girl Pooja. They were supposed to
come back to home by 6.30 p.m. As they did not return by that time, Kamal Kishore went to Poojas
house. He was informed that the two children had left her house at 6.15 p.m. The two children were
continued to be searched thereafter. He, however, came to know that one scooterist wearing a pair of
trousers of black colour and a white colour shirt had taken his children on his scooter.

Judgment: Convicted under S. 364 andS. 302 IPC.

Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment for life.

Observation: The case was based on a circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that within all
the human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. The prosecution case, must be
judged in its entirety having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The approach of the Court should
be an integrated one and not truncated or isolated. The Court should use the yardstick of probability and
appreciate the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on records and analyze and assess the same
objectively.38

Extra-judicial confession, as is well-known, can form the basis of a conviction. By way of abundant
caution, however, the Court may look for some corroboration. Extra-judicial confession cannot ipso facto
be termed to be tainted. An extra-judicial confession, if made voluntarily and proved, can be relied upon
by the Courts.39

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution case is necessarily required to be covered by believable, credible evidence
and leading cogent.

36Khalilur Ramman v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Ran 98.

37(2006)13SCC516

38 Gagan Kanojia and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2006)13SCC516.

39Id
Anil @ Raju Namdev Patil vs. Administration of Daman and Diu, Daman and Anr. 40 (24.11.2006 -
SC)

Facts: Paras, deceased herein was aged about 5 years. He was a student. He went to the school on
3.08.2000. His parents are owner of a factory situated in Daman. The appellant admittedly was appointed
as a driver by them and worked for about three months. At around 6.15 p.m. on the said date, a phone call
was attended by Alpa, mother of the deceased. When she heard the caller, she started weeping at which
point their neighbour Khimjibhai picked up the phone and from other end he was informed that the boy
was in their custody. A demand of Rs. 25 lakhs was made as ransom money for returning the child safely.
Ashwin, father of Paras, thereafter went to the police station and lodged a complaint. The accused made a
confession that the boy had been murdered.

Judgment: The appellant could not have been convicted under Section 364A of the Act. However, he was
found guilty of commission of an offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

Observation: The ingredients for commission of offence under Sections 364 and 364A are different.
Whereas the intention to kidnap in order that he may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in
danger as murder satisfies the requirements of Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, for obtaining a
conviction for commission of an offence under Section 364A thereof it is necessary to prove that not only
such kidnapping or abetment has taken place but thereafter the accused threatened to cause death or hurt
to such person or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to
death or hurt or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign
State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any
act or to pay a ransom.41

Ratio Decidendi: Confession recorded by Magistrate is considered voluntary in nature It is free from
undue influence, coercion and threat.

Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra42 (31.08.2006 - SC)

40(2006)13SCC36

41(2006)13SCC36

42(2006)7SCC442
Facts: The appellants and their mother used to commit thefts. For that they would go to the places of
festivals and whenever they got opportunity they used to snatch the gold chains and made a living out of
the income derived from such thefts committed by them. The appellants and their mother decided that
thereafter they would have a child with them at the time of committing the crime so that by making use of
the child they can escape from the crowd. According to the prosecution, the appellants, their mother
Anjanabai and approver Kiran Shinde entered into a conspiracy to kidnap small children below five years
of age and make use of them whenever necessary and dispose them of when they are no longer useful.
They thought that this was the only way to evade possible arrest whenever they were caught in the
process of committing theft.

Judgment: Convicted under section 364 IPC

Punishment: Death penalty imposed on them.

Observation: Going by the details of the case, we find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the
appellant, except for the fact that they are women. Further, the nature of the crime and the systematic way
in which each child was kidnapped and killed amply demonstrates the depravity of the mind of the
appellants. These appellants indulged in criminal activities for a very long period and continued it till they
were caught by the police. They very cleverly executed their plans of kidnapping the children and the
moment they were no longer useful, they killed them and threw the dead body at some deserted place.
We have carefully considered the whole aspects of the case and are also alive to the new trends in the
43
sentencing system in criminology. We do not think that these appellants are likely to be reformed.

Chatar Singh vs. State of M.P.44 (24.11.2006 - SC)

Facts: Appellant herein was proceeded against in a case involving kidnapping of two boys. Sudhir Kumar
and Sushil Kumar, aged about 10 to 12 years. They were sons of Ramakant Katiyar (P.W.6). They had
gone to attend school at about 7.30 in the morning of 29th December, 1994. They were to return at about
1.30 p.m., but, when they did not return till 5.30 p.m., a search for them was made. Both the children
were killed by the accused. During investigation, appellant was apprehended and ultimately, he was
prosecuted for alleged commission of offences under Section 302, 201, 364, 365 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

43(2006)7SCC442

44(2006)12SCC37
Judgment: Convicted under Sec. 364 and Sec. 365.

Punishment: Life Imprisonment of 14 years.

Observation: The High Court committed a manifest error in sentencing the appellant for 20 years'
Rigorous Imprisonment. The maximum sentence imposable being 14 years and having regard to the fact
that the appellant is in custody for more than 12 years. Now, we are of the opinion that interest of justice
would be sub- served if the appellant is directed to be sentenced to the period already undergone. The
appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. The appellant shall be released forthwith.

Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur vs . State of Rajasthan45 ( 14 . 05 . 2007 - SC )

Facts: On February 17, 1995, as usual, he left his residence for a morning walk at about 7.00 a.m. He had
hardly completed two or three rounds and when again he reached at the road for further rounds, he saw a
white Maruti car and one man came out of it. The said man asked Rajendra Mirdha about the location of
House No. 105 or 106. Before he could reply, he was pushed into the car and was taken away. There were
three persons in the car having weapons. Rajendra Mirdha did not know why he was kidnapped. After
some time, Mr. Mirdha was taken in one house. The kidnappers then told Mr. Mirdha that they were the
members of the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF). One of their members, Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar
was arrested at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on the night of January 18-19, 1995 on his return
to India after the German authorities declined to grant him asylum and the kidnappers wanted him to be
released.

Judgment: Convicted under Sec. 365 IPC

Punishment: Imprisonment for 12 years and 1000/- fine.

Observation: An order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High
Court for offences punishable under Sections 365/120B, 343/120B and 346/120B, IPC is confirmed and
upheld. Her conviction and order of sentence for offence punishable under Section 364A read with 120B,
IPC passed by the High Court, however, is set aside and her acquittal for the said offence recorded by the
trial Court is restored.

Vishwanath Gupta vs . State of Uttaranchal46 ( 21 . 03 . 2007 - SC )

45(2007)5SCC634

46(2007)11SCC633
Facts: The accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap PW 7 Vedprakash Devkinandan
Chidipal and extort a ransom of Rs. 1 crore from him. One Sherjada (now deceased) called the assistance
of A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan Ismailkhan, A-11 Jahangir Mahammadanwar Saiyed and A-1
Abdulvahab and together they planned to kidnap PW 7 Chidipal. The accused took the telephone numbers
of the brothers of PW 7 Chidipal. PW 11 Jaiprakash, brother of Chidipal was contacted and told that he
shall not inform the police and a sum of Rs. 1 crore was demanded from him. Nobody came forward to
give money to the accused. On 24.2.1994, PW 11 Jaiprakash was contacted again and tola to reach the
house of PW 9 Sattar.

Judgment: Acquitted of offences under Section 365, 364A.

Observation: The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the confession of a co-
accused is not a substantive evidence as against the other accused and even though it is admissible under
Section 15 of the TADA Act, it cannot be used for fixing criminal liability of other accused. It was
submitted that such confession could only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence and unless there is
a primary evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the confession cannot be used against them.

Abdulvahab Abdulmajid Shaikh and Ors . vs . State of Gujarat47 ( 24 . 04 . 2007 - SC )

Facts: The prosecution case was that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap PW 7
Vedprakash Devkinandan Chidipal and extort a ransom of Rs. 1 crore from him. One Sherjada (now
deceased) called the assistance of A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan Ismailkhan, A-11 Jahangir
Mahammadanwar Saiyed and A-1 Abdulvahab and together they planned to kidnap PW 7 Chidipal. The
prosecution case was that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap PW 7 Vedprakash
Devkinandan Chidipal and extort a ransom of Rs. 1 crore from him. One Sherjada (now deceased) called
the assistance of A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan Ismailkhan, A-11 Jahangir Mahammadanwar Saiyed and
A-1 Abdulvahab and together they planned to kidnap PW 7 Chidipal.

Judgment: Acquitted. No application of sec. 334A and Sec. 365.

Observation: The confession given by Musakhan @ Babakhan cannot be said to be a figment of his
imagination, but appears to be a true account of the events of kidnapping and extortion of money.
Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the conviction as recorded against these accused-appellants.
The Criminal Appeal No. 1228/2004 filed by the accused is without any merits and is liable to be
dismissed.

47(2007)4SCC257
Daya Singh Lahoriya @ Rajeev Sudan @ Vinay Kumar vs . State of Rajasthan48 ( 14 . 05 . 2007 - SC
)

Facts: Rajendra Mirdha was kidnapped by the accused persons to secure release of their fellow terrorist
Devendra Pal Singh Bhuller (who was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport by the
Police authorities on the night of January 18 & 19, 1995 on his return to India after the German
authorities declined to grant him asylum) by using influence of his (Rajendra Mirdha) father Sh. Ram
Nwas Mirdha who then was heading Joint Parliamentary Committee. The case of the prosecution was that
the appellant herein along with his wife Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur fabricated Registration
Certificate for purchasing several vehicles in order to carry out conspiracy of kidnapping and abducting
one Rajender Mirdha, son of Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha to exert pressure on the Government of India to
release one Devendra Singh Bhullar, an alleged Khalistani terrorist who was being held in custody by the
police. It was also alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of prohibited arms and
ammunition allegedly recovered from House No. B-117, Model Town, Ashok Nagar during police raid
where the appellant was staying.

Judgment: the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364A, IPC.

Punishment: He has been ordered to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life.

Observation: prosecution, conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences punishable under
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or in excess of authority of law.
Kidnapping - Conviction - An accused cannot be convicted on basis of evidence when on basis of same
evidence another co-accused had been acquitted.

48(2007)5SCC366
 2011-2015

Alsia Pardhi v. State of M.P. and Ors.49

A posse of forest officials of the Betul Range, District Betul, forcibly took away one Kusum, W/o
Taarbabu Pardhi and Rajnandani, D/o Ankit Pardhi, aged about 14 years, from the fish market in their
jeep. When the persons present at the site tried to resist the force of the forest officials, Kusum somehow
managed to jump from the jeep but the minor girl Rajnandani was whisked away by them.

OBSERVATION:

The analysis of the materials placed before the court clearly brings the case within the principles laid
down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengal and Ors.50 We hereby direct the Respondents to hand over
all the documents to the CBI within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The CBI is directed to investigate the case in question, viz., whereabouts of Rajnandani who is alleged to
have been taken by the forest officials on 10.02.2011 and submit its report before the court concerned,
within a period of six months thereafter. It is further made clear that the above discussion is only for
entrusting the investigation to the CBI and we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case.

Amit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh51

Neighbour Amit, the Appellant herein, took away the daughter of Radhey Shyam, Monika, aged 3 years,
from his house on the pretext that he would give biscuits to her but neither his daughter nor the Appellant
returned and when at about 5.00 p.m. On the statement of the Appellant, the dead body of Monika kept in

49AIR2014SC877

50 It states that The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are inherent
and cannot be extinguished by any constitutional or statutory provision. Any law that abrogates
or abridges such rights would be violative of the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and
impact of the law on the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken into account in
determining whether or not it destroys the basic structure.

51AIR2012SC1433
a plastic bag was recovered from the wheat field in the out skirts of village Palhara in the presence of
Radhey Shyam and Iqbal Singh.

Observation:Trial Court under the offence under Section 364, Indian Penal Code, imposed the punishment
of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on failure to pay the fine, a further sentence of six
months. The High Court, has not only confirmed the convictions under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302 and
201, Indian Penal Code, but also the sentences awarded by the trial court.

The Supreme Court gave the reason that when the Appellant committed the offence he was a young
person aged about 28 years only. There is no evidence to show that he had committed the offences of
kidnapping, rape or murder on any earlier occasion. There is nothing on evidence to suggest that he is
likely to repeat similar crimes in future. On the other hand, given a chance he may reform over a period of
years. Hence, following the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v.
State of Gujarat , the court convert the death sentence awarded to the Appellant to imprisonment for life
under Section 302 and Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and direct that the life sentence of the
Appellant will extend to his full life subject to any remission or commutation at the instance of the
Government for good and sufficient reasons.

Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar vs. Respondent: State of Maharashtra52

The deceased was a female child aged about 6 years and was the daughter of the complainant. The
Appellant also worked under complainant on certain occasions and according, there was some dispute
relating to payment received by the Appellant, by way of wages and for which no services were rendered
by him. It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant was responsible for the killing of the deceased
Rakhi, and the motive attributed for such killing was the wage dispute that was pending between the
Appellant and complainant.

The Appellant appeared to have made an extra-judicial confession by stating that if he was not beaten, he
would tell the truth and so saying revealed that he had killed the child on account of the wage dispute as
between him and complainant.

Observation:Though a feeble attempt was made on behalf of the Appellant to state that there was some
variation in the version of the witnesses, the High Court considered the said submission in detail and has

52AIR2013SC3564
found that they were all trivial and that there was absolutely nothing to contradict the allegation of motive,
as against the Appellant as well as the complainant.

Having regard to such overwhelming evidence available on record, which proved every one of the
circumstances put against the Appellant and which has been examined in detail by the trial Court as well
as by the High Court, the Supreme Court do not find any merit in this appeal.

Ratio Decidendi:"Appellant shall be guilty of murder if motive of accused is proved by prosecution."

Capt. Dushyant Somal vs. Smt. Sushma Somal and Anr.53

Capt. Dushyant Somal married Sushma Somal on May 10, 1973, there was estrangement between
husband and wife and they appear to have been living separately since 1976. The children were living
with the mother. According to the wife on October 27, 1980, at about 7 a.m. when Sandeep escorted by
his grand-mother Shanti Devi was waiting at the bus stop, Capt. Dushyant Somal accompanied by three
or four other persons came in a car and forcibly took away the child. At that time Sushma Somal was
helping her daughter to board a bus to go to School. After Sweta boarded the bus she came towards the
place where her son was to board the bus. On enquiry she was told about the kidnapping. The Police
registered a case under Section 363 Indian Penal Code against her husband.

Observation:It was argued that the wife had alternate remedies under the Guardian and Wards Act and the
CrPC and so a Writ should not have been issued. True, alternate remedy ordinarily inhibits a prerogative
writ. But it is not an impassable hurdle. Where what is complained of is an impudent disregard of an order
of a Court, the fact certainly cries out that a prerogative writ shall issue. In regard to the sentence, instead
of the sentence imposed by the High Court, the Supreme Court substitute a sentence of three months,
simple imprisonment and a fine of Rupees Five hundred.

The sentence of imprisonment or such part of it as may not have been served will stand remitted on the
appellant-petitioner producing the child in the High Court. With this modification in the matter of
sentence, the appeal and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed.

Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (AIR2013SC2987)

The Appellant and Geeta, prosecutrix, 19 years of age, from Karnal, had known each other for some time.
Appellant had been meeting her in front of her school in an attempt to develop intimate relations with her.

53AIR1981SC1026.
On 10.5.1995, the Appellant induced her to go with him to Kurukshetra, to get married and she agreed. En
route Kurukshetra from Karnal, the Appellant took her to Karna lake (Karnal), and had sexual intercourse
with her against her wishes, behind bushes. Thereafter, the Appellant took her to Kurukshetra, stayed with
his relatives for 3-4 days and committed rape upon her.

Observation:Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, as it is an assault
on the body, mind and privacy of the victim. While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim,
a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. Rape reduces a woman to an animal, as it
shakes the very core of her life. By no means can a rape victim be called an accomplice. Rape leaves a
permanent scar on the life of the victim, and therefore a rape victim is placed on a higher pedestal than an
injured witness. Rape is a crime against the entire society and violates the human rights of the victim.
Being the most hated crime, rape tantamount to a serious blow to the supreme honour of a woman, and
offends both, her esteem and dignity. It causes psychological and physical harm to the victim, leaving
upon her indelible marks.

Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent
is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on
each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court
must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala
fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within
the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not
fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false
promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly,
understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence.

The Supreme Court considered the opinion of the Appellant, who has already served more than 3 years
sentence, hence is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. His
conviction and sentences awarded by the courts below are set aside.

State of Maharashtra vs. Lahu @ Lahukumar Ramchandra Dhekhane54

According to the prosecution, Sanket, son of Suryakant Bhande, was studying in Junior K.G. in M.E.S.
High School. On 29th of November, 1999 Sanket went to school at 9 A.M. When he did not return, the
father went to the school where he met Snake's Class Teacher, Anjali Walimbe, who informed him that he

54AIR2014SC911.
left the school with a person aged about 25 years at 12.30 P.M. In the meanwhile, Pratibha, the mother of
the child received a ransom call promising to release the child on payment of ransom of Rs. 1 lakh. A
report was accordingly lodged.

Observation:The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, came to the
conclusion that the chain of circumstances proved clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and
accordingly, he was held guilty for kidnapping and ransom, murder as also for the destruction of the
evidence. However, on appeal the High Court doubted the evidence of both the teachers and observed that
it is probable that they identified the accused from the photograph published in the newspaper. The High
Court rejected the evidence of the paanwala, on the ground that a paanwala attending to various
customers on a day could not be in a position to identify the accused who had gone with a child some
eight months ago.

The Supreme Court herein observed that acquittal of an accused who has committed the crime causes
grave injustice in the same manner as that of conviction of an innocent person. In the result, the Supreme
Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore that
of the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi:"Acquittal order passed by High Court shall not justifiable if chain of circumstances
clearly points towards guilt of Accused."

Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu vs. The State of Bihar55

Sazia, aged about 8 years, is the daughter of Takki Imam and Shirri, aged about 7 years, Rehan, aged
about 5 years and Arfa Jamal, aged about 3 years are the children of Nusrat Bano. On 5/10/2002, these
children returned from Masjid at about 4.00 p.m. after completing their studies. They went out to play. As
the children did not return till 6.00 p.m. Takki Imam and Nusrat Bano started searching for them all over,
but in vain. At about 9.00 p.m. on the same day, Takki Imam went to Sahebpur Kaml Police Station and
lodged his FIR for Kidnapping.

Observation:We are distressed to note that by affirming the trial court's order, the High Court has
compounded the error and has taken the circumstances against the Appellant. According to the High
Court all this indicates a well-conceived plan with role assigned to everyone. The Court have already
noted that except Takki Imam nobody has said that the Appellant was seen in the locality on the day of

552013 (1) ACR 860 (SC)

incident. That he was employed in Nusrat Bano's telephone booth and was removed from the service
because of his bad conduct appears to be true. But, even if the story that he used to give threats to the
prosecution witnesses and demand his dues is accepted, it does not further the prosecution case. There is
no evidence on record to establish that infuriated by his removal from service and non-payment of dues,
the Appellant masterminded the plot to abduct the children or played any active role in abducting them.

If a criminal court allows its mind to be swayed by the gravity of the offence and proceeds to hand out
punishment on that basis, in the absence of any credible evidence, it would be doing great violence to the
basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. We hope and trust that this is just an aberration. In the result, we
allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Appellant - Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu is ordered
to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi:

"Court shall convict accused person on basis of credible piece of evidence placed on record."

Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan56

On 16.04.1998, Leeladhar lodged a report at Police Station, Barmer stating that on 15.04.1998 his son
Kamlesh aged about 7 years left for the school in the morning but did not return home till evening at 7:00
p.m. In pursuance of the said report, the police made a search. On 19.04.1998, on an information by
Hansraj, Khet Singh and Bheemaram that a dead body of a boy was found lying on the hill of Sujeshwar
in mutilated condition, the police along with one Leeladhar went to the spot. They found that some parts
of the dead body were eaten by the animals. From the clothes, shoes, socks and school bag, Leeladhar
identified the dead body as that of his son.

Observation:The honble Supreme Court has relies on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
for the reliability of circumstantial evidence. It pointed out 5 conditions in which the circumstantial
evidence can be relies upon and they are; (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there
must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

56AIR2013SC1474.
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused. These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a
case based on circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution has established all the circumstances by cogent and
acceptable evidence and if we consider all the circumstances it leads to a conclusion that it was the
Appellants/Accused who kidnapped and committed the murder of the deceased Kamlesh. The court is
satisfied that the trial Court has rightly accepted the prosecution case and awarded life sentence which
was affirmed by the High Court. The apex court fully concur with the said conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi:"Standard of proof required for recording a conviction shall be based on the
circumstantial evidence."

Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra57

The deceased, a minor girl, aged about 11 years was living with her grandmother at Gunwant Khandare in
Gunwant Maharaj Sansthan at Lakhanwadi. One morning the accused offered her sweets and attracted
her attention. At about 12.00 O'clock on the same day, both the accused and his wife induced her to come
with them and the girl accompanied them. The grandmother of the girl child was informed by some of the
ladies residing in the neighbourhood that they saw the girl being taken away by the first accused. The
grandmother met village Madhan and informed him that fact and also to her son, Ramesh, but the girl
could not be traced. Facts revealed that the girl was taken by the accused persons to a weekly market at
Paratwada and stayed there during night and the first accused had committed the act of rape on her and
which was repeated at Gayatri Mandir at Paratwada where they had stayed.

Observation:The apex court has observed that the reasons for commuting the death sentence by the
Executive are not in the public domain and therefore it is not possible to know what weighed with the
Executive in commuting the death sentence of each convict.

It seems that though the Courts have been applying the rarest of rare principle, the Executive has taken
into consideration some factors not known to the Courts for converting a death sentence to imprisonment
for life. It is imperative, in this regard, since we are dealing with the lives of people (both the accused and
the rape-murder victim) that the Courts lay down a jurisprudential basis for awarding the death penalty
and when the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed so that the prevailing uncertainty is avoided. Death

57(2013)5SCC546.
penalty and its execution should not become a matter of uncertainty nor should converting a death
sentence into imprisonment for life become a matter of chance.

It does prima facie appear that two important organs of the State that is the Judiciary and the Executive
are treating the life of convicts convicted of an offence punishable with death with different standards.
While the standard applied by the Judiciary is that of the rarest of rare principle, the standard applied by
the Executive in granting commutation is not known. Therefore, it could happen that in a given case the
Sessions Judge, the High Court and the Supreme Court are unanimous in their view in awarding the death
penalty to a convict, any other option being unquestionably foreclosed, but the Executive has taken a
diametrically opposite opinion and has commuted the death penalty. This may also need to be considered
by the Law Commission of India.

The conviction of the Appellant should be upheld endorse the direction that all the sentences awarded to
the Appellant should run consecutively.

Ratio Decidendi:Death penalty and its execution must not become matter of uncertainty nor must
converting death sentence into imprisonment for life become matter of chance.

Sunder @ Sundararajan vs. State by Inspector of Police58

On 27.7.2007 Suresh aged 7 years, who lived with his mother Maheshwari at Karkudal village in
Vridhachalam Taluk, left his residence in the morning as usual, at about 8 a.m. to attend his school at
Vridhachalam via van. The same school van would bring them back in the afternoon at about 4.30 p.m.
On 27.7.2009, Suresh did not return home. Maheshwari his mother got worried and made inquiries. She
inquired from other student from the same village, who used to travel to school in the same van with
Suresh. Suresh had accompanied the man on his motorcycle. He told her, that a man standing alongside a
motorcycle, had called out to Suresh and had taken Suresh along with him on his motorcycle.
Maheshwari proceeded to Police Station, Kammapuram, to register a complaint. Maheshwari received a
call on her mobile phone. The caller demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs for the release of Suresh.

Observation:A perusal of the Sec 364A, it leaves no room for any doubt, that the offence of kidnapping
for ransom accompanied by a threat to cause death contemplates punishment with death. Therefore, even
without an accused actually having committed the murder of the individual kidnapped for ransom, the
provision contemplates the death penalty.

58AIR2013SC777.
In the instant situation therefore, the guilt of the accused-Appellant (under Section 364A of the Indian
Penal Code) must be considered to be of the gravest nature, justifying the harshest punishment prescribed
for the offence hence upheld the decision of HC and the accused must be awarded death penalty.

Ratio Decidendi:"Court shall award punishment to accused person after considering nature of offence,
and extent of brutality with which offence is committed."

Vikram Singh @ Vicky and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.59

Writ Petition was first filed in the apex Court by the Petitioner, Vikram Singh @ Vicky for a declaration
that Section 364A inserted in the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires the Constitution to the extent the same
prescribes death sentence for any one proved guilty. The Petitioner prayed for a further writ quashing the
death sentence awarded to him by the trial Court under Sec 302 and 364A of IPC, upheld by the High
Court and finally affirmed by Supreme Court. A mandamus directing commutation of the sentence
awarded to the Petitioners to imprisonment for life was also prayed for.

Observation:Constitutional validity of any Parliamentary or State legislation is judged on the twin tests of
legislative competence of the legislature that enacts the law or on the ground that the legislative
enactment violates a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen. There is no other ground on which the
constitutional validity of an enactment may be determined by a Court of law competent to do so.

The challenge to the provisions of Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code is not founded on the plea that
the Parliament was not competent to enact such a law. The Court do not wish to express any final opinion
on this aspect at this stage. The question whether a pronouncement as to the vires of Section 364A will
have any impact on the sentence awarded to the Petitioners would arise only if Section 364A is held to be
constitutionally invalid.

It is only then that the Court may go into the question of the impact of such a pronouncement. For the
present, what we have before us is a last ditch attempt by the Petitioners to avoid the extreme penalty that
the law provides for even the most heinous crime punishable under the code. The Supreme Court refer the
matter to a Bench of three Judges for hearing and disposal.

State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai etc.60

592013 (8) SCALE 449.

60(2014)5SCC108.
A complaint was lodge, alleging the kidnapping/abduction of a six year old girl child Gomi daughter of
Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben by the accused Kishanbhai. It was alleged, that the accused
had enticed Gomi with a "gola" (crushed ice, with sweet flavoured syrup), and thereupon had taken her to
Jivi's field, where he raped her. He had murdered her by inflicting injuries on her head and other parts of
the body with bricks. In order to steal the "jhanjris" (anklets) worn by her, he had chopped off her feet just
above her ankles.

Observation:The Hobble Supreme Court has observed that on the culmination of a criminal case in
acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for acquittal must necessarily be
identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy.
Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action,
whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be
withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his
culpability. The Court also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which
may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation.

Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu61

The deceased along with his friends was talking behind the school at Vadakku Melur. At that time
Krishnan @ Ramasamy, Rajendiran @ Chinnu, Ramalingam and Selvam came there and took the
deceased Manikandan to the place near Mariamman Temple and attacked him. Later, they took him in an
autorickshaw and abducted him under the pretext that the deceased was being taken to Police Station.
Then, accused 1st, 2nd and 3rd took the deceased Manikandan to the side of the road leading to
Vadakkumelur and under a margosa tree Manikandan was compelled to drink brandy. 1 st and 2nd
strangulated the deceased Manikandan by putting his towel around his neck and done him to death.
Thereafter, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 put the dead body into a borewell.

Observation:In the present case, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the basis of last
seen evidence, the correctness of last seen version emanating from witnesses and as per the prosecution
case is also doubtful, there being contradiction about place where the accused were last seen with the
deceased Manikandan. The High Court had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erred in affirming
the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge.

61AIR2014SC2548.
The Honble Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras and impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. The Appellants
were directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Motilal Yadav vs. State of Bihar [(2015)2SCC647]

The victim (Sagar Kumar), aged six years, along with his sister PW-4 Riya Kumari, aged four years, was
going to School, Kahalgaon in a rickshaw. The informant further told that the rickshaw puller told him
that one person came to the rickshaw and took the victim after telling him that his father was calling him
at the railway station. On receiving information, the informant immediately rushed to the location where
the rickshaw puller Anil Ram was waiting for the victim's return. A demand of Rs. 10 lakhs was made by
someone on phone disclosing his name as Prem Prakash Yadav (co-accused) for release of the boy.

Observation:The Honble Supreme Court has referred the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala 62, where it
was identified regarding the evidential value of the test identification parade, the Court has stated in
paragraph 58 as under:

...The identification parade is conducted by the police. The actual evidence regarding
identification is that which is given by the witness in court. A test identification parade
cannot be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Mere identification of an accused in a
test identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification of the
accused in court....

Also in Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura 63, the Court has made following
observations:

...The primary object of the test identification parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the
persons involved in the commission of offence(s) if the offenders are not personally known
to the witnesses. This Court stated that the failure to hold the test identification parade does
not make the evidence of identification at the trial inadmissible....

By referring these cases the Court rejected the submission of learned amicus curiae that not holding of
test identification parade in the present case is fatal for the prosecution.

62 (2013) 14 SCC 266

63 (2014) 4 SCC 747

Phool Chandra and Anr. vs. State of U.P.64

FIR was lodged on 8.2.2009 by one Bhola Nath alleging that his daughter Kumari Manita aged 14 years,
student of class 10th had gone to school but did not return. He also expressed suspicion that his neighbour
Sharda Prasad Gupta might be involved in the incident. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint,
investigation ensued and the victim Manita was recovered by the police on 12.2.2009.

Observation:The Honble Supreme Court has followed Mathai @ Joby v. George65 where a similar case
observed that now-a-days it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High
Court or other authorities without realising the scope of Article 136. Hence, the court felt it incumbent on
it to reiterate that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or
even Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It was held that the petition has been filed by the Petitioners and accepted to do so by the Advocate-on-
Record without any sense of responsibility. If the Hon'ble Judge has directed to list the application before
another Bench, the court fail to understand as which of the Petitioners right got violated. There could have
been some reasonable cause for the Hon'ble Judge to pass such an order.

State of Rajasthan vs. Roshan Khan and Ors.66

There was a marriage of the daughter of his brother Gyan Singh for which a feast was arranged by him on
27.04.1999. His 15-16 years old daughter, who was slightly weak-minded, disappeared. When she did not
return for quite some time, he and others started searching her. When they went into the old building,
they found Akbar having sexual intercourse with his daughter and she was shouting. They caught hold of
Akbar who later informed them that all the remaining five had also performed sexual intercourse with his
daughter and they knew the remaining five persons.

Observation:The judgment of the High Court is contrary to the evidence on record and is liable to be set
aside. The Court accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court acquitting the Respondents and
restore the judgment of the trial court convicting the Respondents for the offences under Sections 366 and

642015 (5) SCJ 390

65 (2010) 4 SCC 358

66(2014)2SCC476
376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code, and maintain the sentences imposed for the two offences on the
Respondents by the trial court.

Ranjeet Kumar Ram and Ors. vs. State of Bihar [2015(6)SCALE529]

Sunil Kumar Singh, a vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk, lodged a complaint his son Vikky has been
kidnapped. Nearly after three months of the incident, he received a phone call and the kidnappers
demanded a ransom of four lakh rupees for return of his son; but he expressed his helplessness to meet the
demand, and the demand was reduced to Rs. 1,05,000/-. On the basis of statements went to Fakuli Out-
Post and learnt about recovery of dead body of a boy aged 4-5 years and from the photograph shown, he
identified the dead body of child as well as clothes, as that of Vicky.

Observation:The 3 of the accused were convicted and sent for Rigorous Life Imprisonment. The 4 th
accused was acquitted. Also the court has given the reason that the direct evidence of common intention is
seldom available. Such common intention of the accused can only be inferred from the evidence and
circumstances appearing from proved facts of case. In furtherance of common intention, Accused 1 had
been persuading petitioner to pay the ransom amount even before there was no such demand from the
kidnappers.

Vikram Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.67

The petitioners were found guilty of kidnapping Abhi Verma, 16 years' old minor son of goldsmith Ravi
Verma, for a ransom of Rs. 50 lacs. The dead body of the minor was got recovered on the basis of a
disclosure statement suffered by the second petitioner. All the Courts have concurrently held that father of
the deceased was known to petitioner No. 1 and his family, and under that acquaintance the kidnapping
was committed betraying the trust; the three accused committed offence of murder in a preplanned
manner by injecting Chloroform and For twin in heavy doses to the victim after tying both his hands and
legs and sealing his mouth with a tape to prevent the detection of offence; all the three remained closely
associated from the pre-planning till recovery of the dead body of the child; it was not merely a case of
murder simpliciter but the accused were guilty under Section 364A IPC also; that there was no enmity
between the petitioners and the family of the victim and cold-blooded murder was committed only to
extract a heavy ransom of Rs. 50 lacs.

672015(9)SCALE183.
Observation:It was argued that in certain situations even imprisonment for life may be disproportionate to
the gravity of the offence committed by the accused. Hypothetical situations are pressed into service to
bring home the force of the contention. The question, however, is whether the Court can merely on a
hypothetical situation strike down a provision disregarding the actual facts in which the challenge has
been mounted. Our answer is in the negative. Assumed hypothetical situations cannot, in our opinion, be
brought to bear upon the vires of Section 364A.

The stark facts that have been held proved in the present case would at any rate take the case out of the
purview of any such hypothetical situation. The Court say so because the Appellants in the case at hand
have been held guilty not only Under Section 364A, but even for murder punishable Under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. Sentence of death awarded to them for both was considered to be just, fair and
reasonable, even by the standards of rarest of rare cases, evolved and applied by this Court. It is not a case
where the victim had escaped his fate and lived to tell his woeful tale. It is a case where he was done to
death, which is what appears to have weighed with the courts in awarding to the Appellants the capital
punishment.

All that the Court is concerned with is whether the provisions of Section 364A in so far as the same
prescribes death or life imprisonment is unconstitutional on account of the punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by the Appellants. The answer to that question is in
the negative. A sentence of death in a case of murder may be rare, but, if the courts have, upon
consideration of the facts and evidence, found that the same is the only sentence that can be awarded, it is
difficult to revisit that question in collateral proceedings like the one at hand.
 CHAPTER II: DATA ANALYSIS

1. AGE AND SEX

Approximately 101,000 cases of child sexual abuse were substantiated in 1998. Child sexual abuse
constituted about 10% of all child maltreatment cases substantiated. Child sexual abuse substantiations
have inclined in recent years. In 1986, child sexual abuse cases were 16% of all reported cases. The
problem has legal as well health related bearing. Female victims, often young girls are the worst sufferers
of crime like rape, kidnapping and trafficking etc... To prove this type of crime, age estimation is most
important. The ages of relevance to criminal liability ranges between 14 and 18 years in most countries.
In the present study more than 100 cases were studied for age estimation in cases of victims of
kidnapping and sexual assault cases.

Age of victim

25

15
No. of Cases
22

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0-10 Years 10-16 Years (For Boys)

10-18 Years (For Girls) 18 Years and above

In accordance with the updated recommendations for age estimation, a physical examination with
determination of anthropometric measures, inspection of signs of sexual maturation, dental examination
and X- ray examination were carried out. Surprisingly we found that appearance and fusion of
ossification centres and 3rd molar eruption were occurred in few cases at earlier age as contrary to that
mentioned in standard literatures.

In November 2006, when the son of Naresh Gupta, senior vice president of Adobe Systems, was
kidnapped in Noida by a local street vendor, it was initially feared that the child had been abducted by a
criminal gang operating in Uttar Pradesh state. As it turned out, the actual kidnapper operated a small
snack stand in the victims neighbourhood. His motive was monetary. The kidnappers girlfriend wanted
to break into Bollywood and needed money, so she nagged her boyfriend to kidnap one of the rich kids
from the neighbourhood.

The Gupta case exemplifies certain trends in Indian kidnapping and could well point to future scenarios.
The target was the child of a senior executive of a major information technology (IT) company. The
perpetrators, first thought to be members of a criminal gang, were amateurs with a thirst for stardom, a
need for cash and access to, and knowledge of, the victim. When such kidnappings occur in India, they
receive high-profile media coverage because they are still relatively rare. But the problem is likely
underestimated, since many incidents of abduction are never reported. And as Indias economy and
wealthier classes grow, driven in large part by its expanding high-tech sector, kidnappings similar to the
Gupta case could become more common.

Sex

Males; 46%
Females; 54%

Males Females

Due to Indias size, population and pervasive poverty -- it is the seventh-largest landmass in the world,
with more than a billion people and a per capita income of $720 (ranked 137th) -- any kind of crime can
occur frequently without being considered an epidemic. And India is certainly not alone in facing the
problem of kidnapping. India was ranked sixth on the list of countries with the most kidnappings in 2006,
behind such countries as Haiti, Brazil and Mexico. But kidnapping in India is a growing problem,
occurring for multiple reasons across all levels of Indian society and posing a very real threat to foreign
businesses operating in the country. The following study focuses on causes, patterns and methods of
prevention.

Looking at the statics of the research done by us it can be seen that the kidnapping of the children below
10 years of age is maximum when we look at the data from 1992 to 2015. Also the statics of children
victim of kidnapping having age 10 to 16 years (10-18 years for girls) is also not lo but stands at 22 (15).
The statics shows that most of the victims are of the age below 10 years of the age.

Also looking at the ratio of Female to Male victims of kidnapping it stands at 27:23. That means females
are getting victim of kidnapping more than the male. The reason may be for Ransom or may be for sexual
assault which we will discuss in following statics.
 2. RAPE

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total No. of Kidnapping Cases
Rape Cases

Rape Cases Total No. of Kidnapping Cases

Rape in kidnapping cases can is one of the major considerations for the contemporary society. It can be
seen that in the period 1992-1995 the number of rape in kidnapping cases was as low as just to 7, but rape
was done in 3 out of these 7 cases which amount to rape in 42.85% of kidnapping cases. In the 1996-2000
period the number of kidnapping cases reduced with an equivalent reduction in the number of cases of
rape in kidnapping. The period 2001-2005 saw in immense increase in the number of kidnapping cases
along with increase in rape in kidnapping cases. The rate of rape in kidnapping in this period was around
27.36%. This rate continued in the period of 2006-2010 although there was a decrease in number of
kidnapping cases in this period. Again in 2011-2015, the number of kidnapping cases increased with an
increase in rape in kidnapping cases. This period witnessed maximum number of cases of rape in
kidnapping. There was rape in 36.66% cases of kidnapping witnessed in this period.
 3. MURDER

31

26
22

15
13
9
7
3 4
1
1992-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015
Murder Total Kidnapping Cases

It can be seen from the above graph that in the period 1992-1995 the number of kidnapping cases which
culminated to murder of the victim was just one this is a mere 14.28%. The rate of murder in kidnapping
rose to surprising 75% in 1996-2000 period. This rate slowed to 50% in 2001-2005, but the number of
cases in which murder took place increased by around 433%. This rate lowered in 2006-2010 by 25% but
again the cases in which the victim was murdered remain around 40.09%. The scenario of murder in
kidnapping cases continued in period of 2011-2015. There was murder in almost every second case of
kidnapping. The rate of murder increased by around 166.66%. Thus it can easily inferred from our
analysis that with the continuous increase in the number of cases year by year, the rate of murder in
kidnapping cases also increased at an increasing rate except a downfall in 2006-2010.
 4. RANSOM

Ransom
Yes NO

9 22
2011-2015

8 14
2006-2010

5 21
2001-2005

1 3
1996-2000

1 6
1992-1995

Ransom automatically comes to mind when we talk about kidnapping, from the period of 1990s to the
present date there has been a bit of a change in ransom relating kidnapping matters. In the period of 1992
95 only 14% cases of kidnapping were related to ransom, so it was on a low. But it changed in the next
few years as in 1995-2000 it increased by 11% and almost one-fourth of all kidnapping cases were for
ransom i.e. one out of each 4 cases was for ransom. The next few years saw a huge increase in the number
of cases but percentage of ransom related cases went down to 18 %., the total number of kidnapping cases
increased by 800 % in 2000-05 as compared to 1995-2000. In the period of 2005-10 the number of
kidnapping cases decreased as compared to previous years but ransom related cases increased at a very
rapid rate i.e. ransom related cases were almost 35 % of the total kidnapping cases. As far as the last 5
years is concerned both kidnapping cases and ransom related cases have increased constantly with the
percentage of ransom related cases still being around 35%.
5. JUDGMENT TREND

Supreme Court
25

20
Axquittal
15
Conviction
10

0
1992-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015

High Court
30

25

20 Acquittal
Conviction
15

10

0
1992-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 2011-2015
 Trial Court
30
25
20 Acquittal
Conviction
15
10
5
0
1992-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2010-2015

In the above three graphs we can see that within two decades there has been a significant increase in the
number of kidnapping cases. We see that the trial court has the least acquittal rate. There was a gradual
increase in the period 1996-2000 to 2001-2005. There was a decrease in the period of 2006-2010 but then
again in 2010-2015 the number of happenings increased drastically.
 6. FINAL ACQUITTAL/CONVICTION/FINE

Chart Title
30

25

20

15

10

0
1992-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015

Acquittal Conviction Fine

The conviction/ acquittal rate in the period 1992-1995 has been almost equal. It can be seen in 1996-2000
all the 100% cases resulted in conviction. The rate of conviction slowed by 25% but the number of
convictions was very high to 18 cases out of 24. The conviction/ acquittal rate in the period 2006-2010
increased to around 80% conviction in cases which reached the apex court. This rate diminished to around
56% for the period of 2011-2015. In this period the rates of convictions and acquittals shows the increase
in acquittals almost transcended to that of convictions.

In the period 1992-1995 fine was charged in around 23% of cases. This scenario continued in the 1996-
2000 period. Even with the increase in number of cases in 2001-2005 the rate of charging fine in the cases
just increased to around 30%. The charging of fine increased in period 2006-2010 and the graph went on
at an increasing rate. This trend of increasing at increasing rate of the punishment of fine continued in the
period of 2011-2015.
 CHAPTER III: GENERAL ANALYSIS

The general trend in relation to kidnapping and various features related to it have been dealt and depicted
in the aforementioned graphs. As it can be seen from the graphs that the most abused age group in this
particular crime is that of the 0-10 years, for which the main reason is its easy to physically take them
away and plus they can be easily deceived and since they are small children you dont expect them to be
much of a trouble. Also, their minds are not that developed to take some action against the offenders and
to understand who the right person to be with is. There is not that much of a disparity when it comes to
sex of the victim but there is a bit of inclination towards female victims as the factor of rape comes in
because as we can see that the rape victims are 99.99% girls, and some kidnappings are with the sole
motive of rape. Had it been general and not considering rape the sex ratio in this regard would have been
even more equal instead of that 54-46% ratio. As far as Rape is concerned some of the kidnappings are
done with motive of rape but 70% of the kidnappings related to girls has resulted in rape i.e. most of the
times a girl is kidnapped rape takes place and this justifies the inclination of sex ratio in kidnappings
nipping a bit towards the girls. Murder is also a related factor and as it can be seen from the graphs also,
murder is committed at a rate of 40% in the cases of kidnappings and in the years 2000-05 and 2010-15 it
has gone as up as 50 % i.e. half the times in a kidnapping case there are murders committed. Asking for
Ransom is one of the major reasons to commit kidnapping. Ransom holds a major part of kidnapping as it
is taken as the easy money by the offenders. Latest trend in the ransom matters has been that 35% of the
total kidnappings has been with the motive of ransom in the past 10 years. Conviction rate has always
been on the higher side when it comes to the cases of kidnapping and it has gone as high up as 99% in the
time period of 1995-2000. Between the period of 1995-2010 it can been seen that conviction rate is on the
very high side of the graph. Otherwise also it has been seen that Judges try to convict the offenders for
the crime and dont keep it for the beyond reasonable doubt purposes and on the basis of small evidences
also convict the criminals. In most of the cases fine is not imposed on the offenders and only sentences
are awarded. In the years from 2000-2005 kidnappings there was a major boom in giving fines as well as
sentences otherwise fine has not been that much in the picture when it comes to kidnapping as it can be
seen from the graph as well that only in 10% of cases is fine posed on the offender otherwise only
sentences are given. As far as the sections from the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the last 15 years
section 364 has seen major kidnappings committed under its ambit i.e. kidnappings for murder, as it has
been seen that 50 % times murder has been committed in cases of kidnappings which is under section 364
of the Indian Penal Code. Section 364A has also seen increase in number of matters under its ambit from
2-5-8 in the gap of 15 years, i.e. increase by 400% under this section. Lastly under section 366 of IPC a
lot of crimes have been committed.

So it has been seen that half the times kidnappings have resulted in murder, major reasons for kidnapping
have been rape ransom and compelling women to get married, the most abused age group has been that of
0-10 years and number of kidnappings are increasing every year with the latest being 34 in the last 5
years.