“  REPORTABLE”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2006

Shyam Babu & Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

This  Appeal  arises  out  of  the  appellate  judgment  passed  by

Division  Bench  of  High  Court,  dismissing  the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellants  herein,  confirming  their  conviction  for  offences  under

Sections 364-A, 325, 323, 384, 342 and 506 IPC all read with Section

120-B IPC.  As many as five accused persons came to be tried by the

Sessions Judge, Faridabad for the above mentioned offences and all of

them were convicted.  They were Accused No. 1 (A-1) Shyam Babu,

Accused No. 2 (A-2) Brij Bhushan, Accused No. 3 (A-3) Revti Raman,

Accused No. 4 (A-4) Chander Bhan and Accused No. 5 (A-5) Tejpal.

Their conviction was upheld by the High Court also.  However, before

us, only Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 have come up by way of an appeal.

1

It is reported that A-2 Brij Bhushan has not challenged his conviction,

as well as the appellate order passed by the High Court.   

2. Prosecution case was that  on 24.9.1997, at  about 2.30 in the

afternoon,  Smt.  Bhawna  made  a  statement  before  S.I.  Bishamber

Dayal at Ambedkar Chowk, Ballabgarh.  It was alleged that she was a

house wife and her husband was working at Faridabad.  She further

stated that she had two children, namely, Swati, a daughter and Anchit,

a son.  She stated that her son Anchit  was 4-½ years old and was

studying in Nursery Class in D.A.V. School, Ballabgarh.  She claimed

that he used to go to School by School Bus, Route No. 1 at 7.30 a.m.

and used to come back at 1.25 p.m.  On that day, as usual, after her

son returned by bus, she came to her house and saw two persons in

the room behind the door, speaking local language.  She had given

their description also.  She further stated that she had seen one white

coloured  Maruti  Van  bearing  No.  DDD-436,  standing  outside  their

house in which two other young men were sitting and they forcibly took

away her son, who was still in his school uniform, and when she tried to

stop them, they gave fist blows to her and one of them also threatened

her with knife and while departing, they also threw a note inside the

house demanding Rs.5 lacs as ransom money for the return of the child

and also threatened that in case police was informed, they would kill

the child.  She claimed that her hands and feet were tied with cloth and

she was bolted inside the room.  She managed to free herself and after

2

opening the door, had informed the police.  She stated that occurrence

had also been witnessed by her neighbour Raju Solanki and she could

identify  the  culprits.   After  recording  the  statement,  S.I.  Bishamber

Dayal sent the same to the police station with his endorsement, on the

basis  of  which  a  formal  FIR  was registered  in  Police  Station,  City

Ballabgarh at 2.40 p.m.  The Special Report also reached the Judicial

Magistrate,  Faridabad  on  the  same  day  at  about  7  p.m.  at  his

residence.

3. On the basis of this, the police sprang into action and started the

usual  investigation  by  preparing  the  site  plan  and executing  a  spot

panchanama.  They found a towel,  which was lying on the spot,  as

also, the ransom note Exh. PD.  Bhawna, the mother was got examined

by the Doctor.  On the next day, the police reached house of Shyam

Babu, A-1, where they came to know that the said Maruti Van bearing

No. DDD-436 was parked in a place at Nohra of Khichi.  The said Van

was seized.  Thereafter, the S.H.O.  S.I. Bishamber Dayal raided the

sugar-cane fields of village Ranwari and heard the noise of the weeping

of a child from the fields.  PW-7 Udham Singh identified the voice and

recovered the child.  The accused persons were not found there.  They

had  obviously  run  away.   Later,  on  30th September  1997,  A-2  Brij

Bhushan and A-3 Revti Raman were arrested on being produced by

PW Raghunath, while A-1 Shyam Babu was produced by one Hukam

Singh.  By and by, all the accused came to be arrested.  On 1.10.1997,

3

S.I. Bishamber Dayal moved an application for identification of these

accused, namely, Rewati Raman (A-3), Brij Bhushan (A-2) and Shyam

Babu (A-1).  However, these accused refused to join the identification

parade and made statement on 1.10.1997 vide Exh. PQ.  During the

investigation,  A-2  Brij  Bhushan  agreed  to  discover  a  country-made

pistol, which was recovered after executing the necessary documents,

like  disclosure  statement  and  recovery  memo,  Exh.  PR  and  PS

respectively.  A-3 Revti Raman also got recovered one spring actuated

knife.  It is thereafter that A-4 Chander Bhan and A-5 Tajpal also came

to be arrested.  One of them was found with a knife, which was also

seized.  A-4 Chander Bhan and A-5 Tejpal gave their consent for giving

the sample handwriting, which was taken from them, also the specimen

handwriting  of  A-1  Shyam  Babu  was  taken  in  Court.   After  the

investigation,  the  accused  were  charge  sheeted.   The  plea  of  the

accused was that of the false implication.  The Trial Court, as well as,

the High Court have accepted the prosecution case in toto.   

4. Shri  R.N.  Kush,  Learned Counsel,  appearing on behalf  of  the

appellants, firstly, submitted that the identity of A-1 and A-3 was not

established, while A-5 Tejpal was implicated out of the earlier rivalry.

He tried to feebly suggest that it was not possible for Bhawna to identify

the accused, who had overpowered her.  He also suggested that the

said ransom note, which was allegedly written by one of the accused

persons, though was in the custody of the police earlier, the police took

4

unduly long time in sending it for the handwriting expert’s examination.

The Learned Counsel tried to suggest that the evidence of Bhawna, as

also, the other witnesses was not reliable at all and had to be rejected,

as such.  We were taken through the evidence of Bhawna, who was

cross-examined at length from time to time.  In her evidence, she had

narrated the whole story that after she returned back from the School

along with her son, two young persons were found hiding and one of

them started beating her and other overpowered her son Anchit.  She

also suggested that one of them showed knife to her child and gagged

his mouth, as also her mouth.  She identified A-4 Chander Bhan, who

had shown knife to her child and gagged his mouth.  She identified A-2

Brij Bhushan as the other person.  She also deposed that she had seen

Maruti  Van  bearing  Registration  No.  DDD-436,  parked  nearby  her

house, when she had gone to pick up her child and also at the time

when she returned back along with her child.  She also referred to the

ransom note, being left, in which the demand of 5 lacs of rupees was

made.  The witness also identified A-3 Rewti Raman and A-1 Shyam

Babu as the persons, who were occupying the Maruti Van.  She also

asserted that PW-2 Raju Solanki had arrived at her house and that his

house was only 4-5 houses away from her house.  She also identified

A-5 Tejpal as the person, who was their neighbour, living on the right

side of their house.  She was cross-examined extensively.  However,

the cross-examination is not at all effective, as was rightly found by the

two Courts below.  It was tried to feebly suggest that since the Maruti

5

Van was 200 yards away, the witness could not have seen the two

accused sitting in the Van.  Some insignificant omissions have been

brought  in  her  examination,  which  are  of  no  consequence.   Very

strangely, there is not a single question asked about the identification of

any of the accused.  Since at least three of the accused persons had

refused to join the identification parade on the very next day of their

arrest, it  would speak volumes.  The three accused, i.e., A-1 Shyam

Babu, A-2 Brij Bhushan and A-3 Revti Raman had refused to join the

identification  parade.   This  fact  was not  disputed before  any of  the

Courts below and even before us.  As regards the remaining accused

persons are concerned, namely, Chander Bhan (A-4) and Tejpal (A-5),

their identity was also not challenged.  It is significant to note that A-5

Tejpal  was a  neighbour of  Bhawna, while the other  had thrown the

ransom note.  Ultimately,  as per the handwriting expert’s  report,  it  is

obvious  that  the  ransom note  was  actually  written  by  A-4  Chander

Bhan.  That fact was also not seriously disputed before us.  If that is so,

the evidence of the lady was more than sufficient to connect all  the

accused.  It is true that the lady did not say anything about A-5 Tejpal.

We will deal with the case of A-5 Tejpal at a later stage.  However, in

respect of the four accused here, out of whom three are appellants, it is

clear that the lady had not only identified them in the Court, but also

had graphically deposed about their individual actions.

5. It  must  be noted that  the  lady had an opportunity  to  see the

accused persons in broad day light.  She was all along with accused

6

persons for considerable time.  She was not only overpowered, but was

also injured, which injuries were also got proved by the prosecution.  In

fact,  the  presence of  those  injuries  very  materially  corroborated the

story told by the witness Bhawna.  Lastly, she was the mother and in

her own presence, the child was forcibly taken away by the accused

persons.

6. A criticism was raised that  this  lady could not  have seen two

accused persons, sitting in the Van, because the distance was about

200 yards.  In our opinion, such possibility cannot even be imagined.

Here was a mother, whose child was being taken away, who had noted

the Registration Number of the Maruti Van correctly, had also described

the same correctly and had also noted that the two persons were sitting

and ultimately, that her son was taken away in that very Maruti Van.

We have scanned the evidence of this witness very carefully and we

find that it is reliable and further, the Courts below committed no error

in relying on that  witness,  at  least  insofar as,  A-1,  A-3 and A-4 are

concerned.

7. PW-2 Raju Solanki was a neighbour.  He also confirmed that he

had heard some noise and saw the Maruti Van of White colour, bearing

Registration No. DDD-436, which was parked in the street.  He also

saw the two persons, occupying the Van.  He also correctly recognized

A-1 Shyam Babu and A-3 Revti Raman as the occupants of the Van.

He also correctly stated that the other two accused, namely, A-2 Brij

Bhushan and A-4 Chander Bhan were holding the child.  He also had

7

raised the alarm and tried to catch, but could not.  A criticism was made

against the evidence of this person that it was not possible for him to

see the  whole  incident.   We  have seen his  cross-examination  very

carefully and we found nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve

this witness.  He has fully corroborated the evidence of Bhawna.  His

statement was also recorded along with Bhawna’s statement.  He had

also seen the towel, the ransom note, as also the broken glass.  He

frankly admitted that he had not given the description of the accused to

the police.  Further, he stated that the description was already told by

Bhawna  to  police  in  his  presence.   We  find  nothing  in  the  cross-

examination  of  this  independent  witness,  which  would  shake  the

substratum of the story in this case.    

8. Evidence of PW-3 Raj Kumar is of extreme importance.  He was

a  witness,  who  had  seen  A-5  Tejpal,  boarding  the  Van,  bearing

Registration No. DDD-436.  This witness directly connects A-5 Tejpal

with the crime.  He had seen Tejpal boarding the Van and at that time,

the  other  4  accused  persons  were  also  in  the  Van.   There  was

absolutely  no  reason  for  A-5  Tejpal  to  join  the  accused  persons,

immediately after the crime, when the kidnapped boy was also present

in the Van.  He had deposed about the enmity between A-5 Tejpal and

the father of the boy Udham Singh.  He also confirmed that A-2 Brij

Bhushan used to visit  A-4 Chander Bhan,  A-5 Tejpal  and the other

accused were also seen by him a few days earlier.  He was also cross-

examined at length.  However, the evidence of the witness remained

8

unshaken.  In fact, in the cross-examination, it had come that he had

seen  A-5  Tejpal  only  from  the  distance  of  three  paces,  when  he

boarded  the  Van.   Barring  the  few  negative  suggestions,  nothing

significant was asked to this witness.  We do not see anything wrong in

the witness being believed by the Courts below.  PW-7 is the father of

the kidnapped child, who was present when the child was retrieved by

police.  Even this witness had spoken about his rivalry with A-5 Tejpal.

The said rivalry was on account of the Workshop of Tejpal, being in that

residential area and Udham Singh had made many complaints against

the said Workshop.  The witness stated that his son died hardly 17

days after the incident on account of the shock that he had received.

This  witness  was  obviously  not  present,  when  the  kidnapping  took

place, but was informed by PW-3 Raj Kumar on telephone.  We do not

find anything to disbelieve this witness.  We were also taken through

the  evidence  of  PW-12  S.I.  Bishamber  Dayal,  who  was  the

Investigating Officer.  He had stated about the statement of Bhawna,

having been made to him, recording of  the First  Information Report,

finding the Maruti Van No. DDD-436, which was parked in the Nohra of

Khichi, as also the recovery of the child.  He had also stated about the

arrest of the accused persons, as also the refusal on the part of the A-

1, A-2 and A-3 to join the identification parade.  He had spoken about

the disclosure statements and recovery of pistol from A-2 Brij Bhushan

and  the  knife  from A-3  Revti  Raman.   He  had  also  spoken  about

Ransom note,  which was found in  the house of  Bhawna, the same

9

being Exh. PD.  In short, this witness has given a correct picture of the

investigation.   Again,  the  cross-examination is  completely  lackluster,

without  any  significant  fact  being  brought  on  record.   In  short,  the

prosecution evidence was rightly believed by the Courts below and the

accused were rightly convicted.   

9. Shri Kush, Learned Counsel concentrated on the nature of the

offence.  According to him, the ingredients of Section 364A IPC were

not proved in this case and at the most, the conviction could be under

Section 364.  Section 363 deals with the punishment for kidnapping,

which offence is  defined in  Section 359.   The punishment  is  seven

years.  Section 364 provides for kidnapping or abducting in order to

murder,  while Section 364A deals with kidnapping for  ransom.  The

wording is as under:-  

“Kidnapping for ransom, etc. – 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.”

The  wording  itself  suggests  that  when kidnapping  is  done  with  the

threat  to  cause  death  or  hurt  to  the  kidnapped  person  or  gives  a

reasonable apprehension that some person may be done to death or

hurt  or  compels  any Government,  any foreign  State  or  international

inter-governmental  organization or  any person to pay a ransom, the

10

offence is complete.  Here was a case, where the accused persons in a

daring  day light  bid  kidnapped a child,  right  in  the  presence of  his

mother and caused hurt to her, which was in the nature of grievous hurt

and on the top of it, demanded a ransom of 5 lacs of rupees in writing

for the life of the child.  We have gone through the original note Exh.

PD, which clearly brings out the threat to the life of the child in case the

ransom money is not paid.  In our considered opinion, there would be

no other offence, but the one under Section 364A.  The ransom note is

proved to be in handwriting of A-4 Chander Bhan and it was not an

individual act of Chander Bhan, but as many as 3 appellants, who were

together in whisking away the child from his mother.  A-5 Tejpal must

be presumed to have the idea, because he immediately and knowingly

joined  the  bandwagon.   It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  all  the  accused

persons have, undoubtedly, committed the offence under Section 364A

and the Courts below were right in convicting them for the offence, as

also awarding them the life imprisonment for the same.  We find no

merit in the Appeal.  The Appeal is dismissed.

                           ……………………………..J. ( D.K. Jain )

…………………………..J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

New Delhi; November 11, 2008.

11

Digital  Performa

Case  No.           : Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2006.

Date of Decision : 11.11.2008

Cause Title :  Shyam Babu & Ors.

Versus

State of Haryana

Coram :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain

   Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar      

Judgment delivered by :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Nature of Judgment  :  Reported

12