The Allahabad High Court recently changed the conviction of two men who kidnapped an 11-year-old boy from Kidnapping for Ransom (Section 364A IPC) to Kidnapping with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person (Section 365 IPC).
The reason behind the alteration was the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged ransom letter sent to the father of the child.
After examining the evidence, the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava concluded that the appellants/convicts had intended to keep the boy under wrongful confinement rather than demand ransom. Therefore, the court observed that the conviction could be changed from Section 364A of IPC to Section 365 of IPC.
Brief Facts:
A First Information Report was filed by Chandra Pal, reporting the kidnapping of his 11-year-old son by a group of 6-7 unidentified individuals who had fired guns during the incident, injuring one person. The police began an investigation, during which they received information about a ransom demand and the location of the kidnapped boy. They apprehended two suspects, recovered the kidnapped boy, seized weapons, and registered cases against the accused individuals under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The cases were committed to the Court of Sessions, which framed charges against the accused. The court convicted the accused based on evidence that proved charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contentions by the Applicant:
The appellants argued that they were not named in the F.I.R. and the prosecution's evidence is contradictory. The alleged police firing case led to the acquittal of all accused, making the recovery of the kidnapped boy from the present appellants false. The defence also claimed that the appellants were falsely implicated due to previous animosity, and thus, appeals should be allowed.
Contentions by the Respondent:
Learned AGA opposed the appeals, arguing that the kidnapping was done for ransom and was supported by reliable evidence. The kidnapped boy's testimony, along with his father's and village witness Jabar Singh's, corroborated the fact of the kidnapping. The appellants also shot and injured Jabar Singh during the commission of the crime. A ransom letter sent by the appellants was received by the informant and given to the Investigating Officer. The learned State Counsel raised several other grounds for dismissing the appeals.
Observations by the Court:
The court was of the view that the law on Section 307 I.P.C. states that the intention or knowledge with which an act is committed is more important than the resulting injury. The intention to kill or knowledge of death is a question of fact, not law. The court also cited the Supreme Court case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127 where it was ruled that the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as to constitute murder. Another case on which the Court relied was the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and another, AIR 2019 SC 1120, where it was reiterated that causing hurt with the intention or knowledge of causing death is enough to attract Section 307 I.P.C.
Regarding the conviction under Section 364A IPC, the Court observed that the trial court had relied on a photocopy of the ransom letter instead of the original, which is not permissible under Section 64 of the Evidence Act. This section specifies that the original document must be presented as primary evidence if available, and only in cases where it has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced, can a photocopy be presented as secondary evidence. The Court further noted that the prosecution had not provided any evidence that the original document had been lost or destroyed, and therefore, presenting a photocopy was not allowed.
After considering the evidence on record, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the original copy of the ransom letter in the case. The court noted that as per Section 64 of the Evidence Act, the original copy of any document is considered primary evidence and must be proved during the trial. Unless the prosecution shows that the original has been lost, destroyed, or falls in any of the categories mentioned in Section 65 of the Evidence Act, it is not permitted to produce a photocopy of the document as secondary evidence.
After a careful examination of the evidence on record, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court to convict the appellants under Sections 307/149 I.P.C. Despite the death of the alleged main assailant, Awadhesh, the other appellants were jointly responsible for the offence committed in furtherance of the common objective of the unlawful assembly.
The court further concluded that the ransom letter had not been proven in accordance with the law and therefore had no legal validity. As a result, the offence under Section 364A IPC, which requires a demand for ransom, could not be established.
The decision by the Court:
In light of the aforementioned observations, the Court amended the Convicts' conviction from Section 364A IPC to Section 365 IPC.
Case title: Indra Pal and another vs. State of U.P.
Coram: Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8080 of 2008
Advocate for the Appellants: Advocate Noor Mohammad
Advocate for the Respondent: AGA Amit Sinha & State Counsel Mayuri Mehrotra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
