Case: Malleshi Vs. State Of Karnataka

the High Court and submitted that the evidence has been analyzed carefully by both the trial court and the High Court and no infirmity has surfaced. It was further submitted that keeping in view the clear language of Section 364 A it is evident that the accused has been rightly convicted under Section 364 A of the IPC. 7. Section 364 A deals with Kidnapping for ransom etc. This Section reads as follows: "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(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, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." 8. The Section refers to both "Kidnapping" and "Abduction". Section 359 defines Kidnapping. As per the said provision there are two types of kidnapping i.e. (1) kidnapping from India; and (2) kidnapping from lawful guardianship. 9. Abduction is defined in Section 362. The provision envisages two types of abduction i.e. (1) by force or by compulsion; and/or (2) inducement by deceitful means. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of the victim from any place. The case at hand falls in the second category. 10. To "Induce" means "to lead into". Deceit according to its plain dictionary meaning signifies anything intended to mislead another. It is a matter of intention and even if promise held out by the accused was fulfilled by him, the question is: whether he was acting in a bonafide manner? 11. The offence of abduction is a continuing offence. This Section was amended in 1992 by Act XLII of 1993 with effect from 22.5.1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1995 by Act XXIV of 1995 with effect from 26.5.1995. The Section provides punishment for kidnapping, abduction or detaining for ransom. 12. To attract the provisions of Section 364 A what is required to be proved is (1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; and (2) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Netra Pal vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) (2001 Crl. L.J. 1669) to contend that since the ransom demand was not conveyed to the father of PW 2, the intention to demand was not fulfilled. 13. To pay a ransom as per Blacks Law Dictionary means "to pay price or demand for ransom". The word "demand" means "to claim as ones due;" "to require"; "to ask relief"; "to summon"; "to call in Court"; "An imperative request preferred by one person to another requiring the latter to do or yield something or to abstain from some act;" An asking with authority, claiming." The definition as pointed out above would show that the demand has to be communicated. It is an imperative request or a claim made. 14. Netra Pals case (supra) was one where a child was kidnapped. The court found as a fact that since the victim was a child, demand for ransom could not have been made to him and only the demand to pay the ransom could have been made to his guardians. In that factual background it was held that the offence was not under Section 364 A but was under Section 362 of the IPC. Accordingly conviction of the accused was altered to offences relatable to Sections 363 and 365 of the IPC. 15. In the instant case as the factual position found by the trial court and the High Court goes to show, the object of abduction was for ransom. This was clearly conveyed to the victim PW-2. He was even conveyed the amount to be paid. It cannot be laid down as a strait-jacket formula that the demand for payment has to be made to a person who ultimately pays. By way of illustration it can be said that a rich business man is abducted. He is told that for his release his family members have to pay a certain amount of money; but money actually belongs to the person abducted. The payment for release is made by the persons to whom the demand is made. The demand originally is made to the person abducted or kidnapped. 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 364 A. It has to be seen in such a cases 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. In Netra Pals case (supra) the High Court noted that there was no demand to pay. The factual position in that case as noted above is that the victim was a child to whom no demand could have been made. In that background the High Court took the view that Section 364 A has no application as no demand has been communicated. The position factually is different here. Ultimately the question to be decided is "what was the intention? Was it demand of ransom"? There can be no definite manner in which demand is to be made. Who pays the ransom is not the determinative fact, as discussed supra.16. Above being the position, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the courts below to warrant any interference. 17.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]. In the instant case as the factual position found by the trial court and the High Court goes to show, the object of abduction was for ransom. This was clearly conveyed to the victim PW-2. He was even conveyed the amount to be paid. It cannot be laid down as a strait-jacket formula that the demand for payment has to be made to a person who ultimately pays. By way of illustration it can be said that a rich business man is abducted. He is told that for his release his family members have to pay a certain amount of money; but money actually belongs to the person abducted. The payment for release is made by the persons to whom the demand is made. The demand originally is made to the person abducted or kidnapped. 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 364 A. It has to be seen in such a cases 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. In Netra Pals case (supra) the High Court noted that there was no demand to pay. The factual position in that case as noted above is that the victim was a child to whom no demand could have been made. In that background the High Court took the view that Section 364 A has no application as no demand has been communicated. The position factually is different here. Ultimately the question to be decided is "what was the intention? Was it demand of ransom"? There can be no definite manner in which demand is to be made. Who pays the ransom is not the determinative fact, as discussed supra.16. Above being the position, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the courts below to warrant any interference.