Kidnapping | AP High Court Pulls Investigating Agency For Failure To Prove Alleged Ransom, Says It's An Essential Element Of S.364A IPC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that when an offense is alleged under section 346A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution needs to prove two aspects, i.e., the act of kidnapping and threat of hurt or death to compel the kidnapped person or any person to make ransom; and in the absence of either it cannot be said that an offense under the section has taken place.

The order was passed in the batch of criminal appeals filed by the accused, against the order of the trial court wherein they were convicted under section 364A (kidnapping for ransom). The Division Bench of Justice K Suresh Reddy and Justice B V L N Chakravarthi noted that the prosecution although alleged that the kidnapping was for ransom, could not prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.

“So, the particulars making out from the testimony of P.W-1 would disclose that A-4 to A-6 and another person kidnapped him i.e., P.W-1 with an intention to cause P.W-1 wrongfully confined in an isolated place to make a ransom. But the other particulars with regard to threatening him to cause hurt or death, but compel him or any person to make a ransom are not established beyond reasonable doubt, in the light of our discussion supra.”

Background:

The complainant alleged that in 2011, when he was returning from his work, in a corporate vehicle and driver, the car was stopped and taken over by a group of men. The men later took the complainant and the driver of the vehicle to an isolated home, where they were tied and the complainant was asked to make a call demanding a ransom of 30lakhs for his release.

Further, it was stated in the FIR that the driver of the vehicle was sent to the company, wherein the complainant worked and asked to demand ransom again. The company transferred the money to a relative of the complainant, the money was withdrawn by the relative and given to the kidnappers. After this, the complainant was released and preferred the complaint the next day.

The Bench while passing the order berated the investigating agency for having multiple opportunities to intercept the alleged ransom amount, or prove the alleged ransom but failing to do so and relying on the conviction solely based on the deposition given by the complainant.

Relying on section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Bench concluded that the investigating agency purposefully did not place evidence on record that would hinder their narrative.

“In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Investigation Officer purposefully for the reasons best known to him, did not place the call data records of P. Ws-1 to 3 and the accused. In those circumstances, we have no hesitation to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution that they suppressed the best evidence as it would go against their case if produced, and relied on oral testimony of P.W-1, with regard to alleged threats extended by any of the accused to cause death or hurt to the life to P.W-1 to compel officials of L&T Company to pay a ransom.”

The Court noted that the investigating agency was not able to prove the conversation between the kidnappers and the relatives of the complainant. It was noted that no call records were placed before the bench and even the alleged number through which the call was made, could not be traced back to the kidnappers.

“It is pertinent to note down that the Investigation Officer seized the cell phone/mobile phones of the accused and produced before the Court. Unfortunately, he did not take pain to collect call data records relating to mobile phones seized from the accused. No reason is assigned by the prosecution. The best evidence was not placed before the Court.”

Additionally, the Bench found that although the complainant was released on 17th June at 9 am and the alleged ransom amount was handed over to the kidnappers on the same day at 3 pm, the investigating authority made no efforts to serial the ransom amount to tally it later when it was recovered from the accused.

“Therefore, failure to produce the cash at the time of trial would lead to a reasonable doubt that the story of the prosecution is not trustworthy or credible.”

With that observation, the bench noted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove a crime under section 364A. However, given the circumstances, the Bench found that the alleged act of kidnapping had been proved and hence, modified the conviction from under 364A to 365 of the IPC.

Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2458/2018 & Batch

Counsel for petitioners: T Diwakar Reddy

Counsel for respondents: PP