REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 665   OF 2006

P. Liaquat Ali Khan  ...Appellant

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh  ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court  dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

The  learned  IV  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Kurnool  found  the  accused

appellant  guilty of offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian

Penal  Code,  1860  (in  short  the  ‘IPC’)  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo

imprisonment for life.  

1

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

P.W.1 is  grandfather  and PW-2 is  father  of  the victim minor  girl-

Keerthi.  PW-7  is  their  driver.  PW-3  is  maid  servant,  PW-5  is  the  class

teacher of Nursery class  and PW-6  is Principal,  of Sri  Lakshmi English

Medium School,  Kurnool.  Keerthi   aged  about  3  years  was  studying  in

Nursery class of the school. On 03.7.2001 at about 8.30 a.m., PW 7 dropped

the girl at the school and at about 8.45 a.m, one person came to her class,

informed PW 5 that parents of the child forgot to give syrup to her and on

his request, the girl was sent with him to administer the same. After noticing

that the child has been carried away by him, PW 5 instructed PW 3 to stop

him. The said person did not stop though cautioned by PW 3 and so, she

asked PW 8, who was coming by scooter, to stop that person. When PW 8

stopped him and enquired about the matter, the said person informed that he

was taking the child for administering syrup and saying so, he boarded a bus

and went away. Thereafter, PW 3 went to the shop of PW 4 and enquired

from him who also informed her about the taking away of the child by the

said  person.  Later,  PWs 3 and 5 went  to  PW 6 and informed  about  the

incident to her, who in turn informed about the incident to the parents of the

child. The parents came to the school,  searched for the child in N.R. Peta

area of Kurnool and surrounding places. PWs 3 and 5 narrated the physical

2

features of the kidnapper. PW-12 registered the case on the basis of Ex. P1

-report and PW 13 took up further investigation.

On 4.7.2001, Ex. P2. - letter demanding Rs. 1 crore for releasing the

child was received by PW l, who handed over the same to PW 13 in the

presence of PW 11 under Ex.P5 - panchanama. On 9.7.2001, another letter

addressed  in  the  name of  PW 2  was  dropped  in  the  house  of  PW 9  a

neighbour of PW 1, demanding Rs.75 lakhs with an instruction to keep the

amount in a bag and place it under a culvert situated after crossing Radio

Station  on  10.7.2001,  which  was  handed  over  to  PW 13  under  Ex.  P6

-panchanama. On 10.7.2001 at about 12.30 p.m. on the instructions of PW

13, PW 2 placed a bag containing papers under the culvert. Mufti police

constables,  PW 2,  PW 13  and  mediators  were  hiding  in  nearby  throny

bushes  around the culvert.  At about  1.00 p.m. the accused came to that

place by a scooter, picked up the bag and when he reached the road mufti

constables  surrounded  and  caught  hold  of  him and  on  enquiry,  accused

furnished his particulars. In pursuance of Ex. P 7- Statement, he led them to

Avanthi Nagar Street near House No 2-19-10-12 which was locked from

outside with a to let board. The accused opened the doors and led them to

rear side bathroom where the child was found.  PW-2 identified the child.

3

Ex.  P.8  is  the  said  panchanama  and  Ex.P10  is  rough  sketch  showing

topography of the house where the girl was confined. On requisition  by

police,  PW  10-  Magistrate  conducted  test  identification  parade  on

21.7.2001.  

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the

accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.  To substantiate the

accusations,  thirteen  witnesses  were  examined  and  several  documents

were exhibited and case properties were marked.   

The  trial  Court  held  the  appellant  guilty.   In  appeal  High  Court

declined to interfere.

3. The basic stand in the present appeal was that contents of Exh.P2 and

P3 were not proved to have been written by the appellant and if that aspect

is not proved the question of  kidnapping for ransom does not arise as there

was no evidence to show that  the accused demanded any amount. It was

also submitted that Section 364-A had no application.   

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported

the judgment.  

4

5. It is  to be noted that   while granting leave it  was restricted to the

nature of offence only.  Learned counsel  for the appellant  submitted that

Section 364-A was introduced by Notification in the Official Gazette w.e.f.

3.12.1992 The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction shows

that kidnapping for ransom is relatable only to cases where intention was to

cause  death  or  hurt   and not  to  a case  of  this  nature.  The object  of  the

introduction has also been referred to in this regard.  

6. Section 364-A deals with separate type of offence.  The reasons for

introduction of the provision need to be noted. Sections 364, 365, 366 and

367 deal with  various situations under Chapter XVI.  Accused got written

Exts. P2 and  P3 and his house is at a short distance from the house of the

victim. The accused’s  demand for ransom is involved and therefore Section

364-A has clearly application. The  evidence on record  shows that in terms

of the disclosure made by the accused  the child was recovered. The accused

came  near   the  culvert  and  picked  up  the  bag  containing  money.   The

prosecution case is that the place was indicated where the bag was to be

kept. As indicated above arrangement was worked out on 10.7.2001 and the

bag was put as indicated by the accused who came to collect the same.  

5

7. Section 364-A reads as follows:

“364-A-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 cause  hurt  or  death  to  such  person  in  order  to  compel  the Government  or  a  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. Section 364-A deals with separate type of offence where ransom is a

distinguishing feature. The demand of ransom has been clearly established

and the role played by the accused has been analysed by the trial Court and

the  High  Court.  We  find  no  infirmity  in  the  present  appeal  to  warrant

interference which is accordingly dismissed.  

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 17, 2009

6

7