Holding

The prosecution clearly established the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC, and the conviction stands.

Summary

The appellant Vinod and others were convicted for kidnapping a nine‑year‑old boy, Amit Kumar, and demanding a ransom of Rs 10 lakh. The boy was released after the ransom was paid, and the police recovered the money and arrested the accused. The trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the accused contended that Section 364A did not apply, that the demand element was not proved, and that the seized money was not produced at trial. The Supreme Court held that Section 364A covers both kidnapping and abduction, that the prosecution had proved kidnapping, detention and a communicated demand for ransom, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the life sentences.

Issues considered

Whether the elements of Section 364A IPC – kidnapping/abduction, detention and demand for ransom – were proved against the accused.
Whether the demand for ransom was sufficiently communicated to satisfy the statutory requirement.
Whether the conviction and life sentence under Section 364A should be set aside.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 359, s. 362, s. 364A

Subjects

kidnappingabductionransomSection 364A IPClife imprisonmentdemandchild kidnappingcriminal law

Judgment

[2008] 1S.C.R.1141

A VINOD
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 165/2008)
JANUARY 24, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:
s. 364 A - Kidnapping of boy aged 9 years for ransom -
c Conviction u/s. 364 A and sentence of life imprisonment by
courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for -
Prosecution clearly established commission of offence of
kidnapping - Legislature prescribes stringent sentence for
kidnapping - Sentence/sentencing.
D
s. 364 A - Kidnapping for ransom - Necessary
ingredients - Stated.
ss. 359 and 362 - 'Kidnapping' and 'Abduction' -
Distinction between.
E
Words and phrases: 'Demand' - Meaning of.
According to the prosecution case, PW-2-son of PW-
1, aged 9 years was kidnapped for a ransom of Rs. 10
lakhs. On the fateful day, when PW 2 did not return from
F play, PW-1 lodged an FIR. After few days, PW. 4 and S
apprised PW-1 that Y had received a call for ransom of
Rs. 10 lakhs from the abductors for release of PW 2 and
also apprised the manner in which money was to be paid;
and that the police was not to be informed otherwise PW-
G 2 would be killed. PW-1, PW-4 and S arranged the ransom
amount and the first and last notes were initialed as 'MM' ,.. ... ..._
by PW 1. Then as instructed by abductors, Y took the bag
containing currency not.~s in the car and brought back
PW 2 and handed him over to PW 1. PW-2 narrated the
H 1141
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 1142

entire incident of kidnapping to PW 1. Thereafter, on basis A
of disclosure made by PW 2, police apprehend the
accused. On the disclosure statement made by the
accused, ransom amount was recovered from the place
indicated by them. Y was also apprehended and part of
the ransom amount was recovered from him. All the B
accused were charged under section 364A IPC.
Prosecution witnesses were examined. On evidence of
victim PW-2, PW-1 and PW-3, the accused were found
guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court
upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

l ..
HELD: 1.1 The Section 364 A IPC 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. Abduction is
D

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 E
from any place. The offence of abduction is a continuing
offence. [Paras 15, 16 and 18] [1153-A, B, C & D]
1.2 The Section 364-A provides punishment for
kidnapping, abduction or detaining for ransom. To attract F
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. [Paras 18 and 19] [1153-E
G
& F]
... . 1.3 The word 'demand' means 'to claim as one's 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 H
1143 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A from some act;" "an asking with authority, claiming." The
definition would show that the demand has to be
communicated. It is an imperative request or a claim made.
[Para 20] [1153-G & H; 1154-A]
Black's Law Dictionary - referred to.
B
1.4 When the evidence on record is analysed in the
background of Section 364-A IPC, the inevitable t ,
conclusion is that the prosecution has clearly established
commission of the said offence. Considering the alarming
C rise in kidnapping young children for ransom, the
legislature has in its wisdom provided for stringent
sentence. Therefore, the High Court rightly refused to
interfere in the matter. The impugned judgment of the High
Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
interference. [Para 21] [1154-B & C]
D
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 165 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 307-
E DB/2001.
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the
Respondent.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by •
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding
G conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section
364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') as
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.
3. By the impugned common judgment two Criminal Appeal
Nos.255 and 307 of 2001 were disposed of. Ten persons
H including one Virenderwho was declared a proclaimed offender
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 1144
[PASAYAT, J.]

4
were sent for trial. After trial all the accused except Virender, A
whose presence the investigating agency was not able to secure
during trial were convicted under Section 364-A of IPC. They
were convicted for offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC
and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
with default stipulation. B
4. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

Amit Kumar son of Madan Mohan (PW 2) was aged 9
years and on the date of the incident i.e. 29.5.1996 was studying
in class Ill. He used to live with his father in House No.212 Old c
Housing Board Colony, Panipat at a distance of about 100 yards
from Salarganj Gate, Panipat. At about noon time on 29.5.1996

I the boy had gone to Salarganj to play with his friends and when
he did not return home, the family made all efforts to trace him
which proved to be futile. Apprehending that he had been
kidnapped, Madan Mohan (PW-1) proceeded to the Police
D
Station City, Panipat to lodge a report. On the way he met a
police party at Sukhdev Nagar where he made his statement
Ex.PA and on its basis formal FIR (Ex. PA/2) was recorded.
On 2.6.1996, Sanjiv Jain and Faqir Chand (PW-4) came E
and apprised Madan Mohan that Yashpal, a resident of Panipat,
had come to them and told about their having received a
telephonic message from Saharanpur thatAmit Kumar was well
but his abductors were demanding a ransom of Rs.10 ,00 ,0001
- failing which they were threatening to kill Amit Kumar. The F
abductors had further informed Yashpal that in case the matter
was reported to the Police even then Amit Kumar would be killed.
Yashpal had also been apprised of the manner in which the
money was required to be paid, which mode required Yashpal
to travel in Car No.HR-068-244 belonging to Sanjiv Tayal, the
G
younger brother of Madan Mohan, display a white cloth for
·-.
identification before reaching the Railway Crossing before
Rampur at 10.00 p.m. On reaching there, the car was to give a
signal with the dipper.
On getting this information, Madan Mohan, Sanjiv Jain and H
1145 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A Faqir Chand had decided not to report the matter to the police
and had arranged for the requisite amount taking Rs.3,50,000/
- from Mis Surya International (a factory owned by Madan
Mohan), Rs.50,000/-fro'm M/s Design Rug owned by the younger
brothers of Madan Mohan, Rs.2 00,000/-from M/s Surya
B International in the name of Faqir Chand, an amount of
Rs.2,75,000/- from Sintex Handicraft, Panipat in the name of
wife of Madan Mohan as she was partner of the firm.
f ,
On 3.6.1996 Sanjiv Jain and Faqir Chand had again
informed Madan Mohan that Yashpal had come and told them
C that he had received another message that in case the amount
of Rs.10,00,000/-was not paid that day itself, Amit Kumar would
be killed. Yashpal had further assured them not to worry and
had taken the entire responsibility for the safety of the child.
Thereupon the currency notes already collected had been
D arranged in the denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/
- respectively and the first and the last notes of the bundles were
initialled as "MM" by Madan Mohan. Sanjiv Jain had then called
Yashpal at the residence of Madan Mohan and handed over the
bag containing currency notes of Rs.10,000,000/- to him. Yashpal
E had taken away the bag in the car bearing registration No.HR-
068-244, which he had driven away himself.
On 4.6.1996, Yashpal brought back Amit Kumar and
handed him over to Madan Mohan. Amit Kumar told his father
that on 30.5.1996 he was accosted by Vi render the absconding
F accused, who apprised him that his father was calling him. On
hearing this, Amit Kumar accompanied Virender for some
•
distance where two young men, namely, Vinod and Sohan were
positioned near a Yamaha Motor Cycle. Vinod was standing
near the Motor Cycle while Sohan was sitting on the pillion.
G Sohan had caught hold of Amit Kumar and closed his mouth
and made him sit on the motorcycle whereafterthe motor cycle,
was driven away by Vinod to the G.T. l~oad via bus stand from
where it was taken to Gharaunda. When the motor cycle reached
the Yamuna bridge, Amit Kumar was given water to drink and
H the accused threw a coin in the river. After this his abductors
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 1146
[PASAYAT, J.]

took him to Railway Station Sona Arjunpur where it started A
~
raining. Thereupon they made him to sit on the ticket window.
When the rain stopped, Vinod and Sohan had removed him on
the motor cycle to a garden where 4/5 persons were taking liquor.
One of them asked Vi nod whether the work had been done and
another one of them had enquired as to where Vi render was, to B
which enquiry Vined replied that Virender had been left at
Panipat with Yashpal. The group was addressing each other by
their names as Schan, Pawan, Pappu, Jagbir, Sunder Pal and
Vikas. They had served meals to Amit Kumar in the garden.
On the next day, Virender also came there and thereafter c
Virender and Vined had taken Amit Kumar on the Yamaha motor
cycle to the house ofVidya Sagar Chawla at Saharanpur. Vined
stayed with Amit Kumar whereas Virender used to go out at
times. Vidya Sagar Chawla also remained present in the house
and the entire incident was narrated by Amit Kumar to him that ·o
night. On the following day, after Virender had returned, he and
Vined took Amit Kumar to a sugar cane field on a Yamaha motor
cycle. On the pavement of nearby canal, an Ambassador car
was standing and then Sohan, Pawan, Pappu, Jagbir, Sunder
Pal and Vined had taken Amit Kumar for making a telephonic E
call to his father asking him to reach soon. On the way, Vined
had told them that the uncle of Amit Kumar and Kakku had
reached and, therefore, they should escape. On hearing this,
the appellants took Amit Kumar back to the sugar cane field.
During the night car belonging to the uncle of Amit Kumar came F
back near the sugar cane field and Yashpal got down from the
same. He called for the aforementioned persons where upon
Amit Kumar was taken near the car. Vined enquired from
Yashpal whether everything was alright at the house of Amit
Kumar and Yashpal replied in the affirmative. Vined handed over
G
Amit Kumar to Yashpal, who in turn handed over a bag to Vinod.
·1
Yashpal further told that they shall count for the money after some
time. Yashpal thereafter took Amit Kumar to Saharanpur where
meals were taken and Yashpal had left him at the residence of
Madan Mohan.
H
1147 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A After his release, Amit Kumar had told his father that he
could point out the places where he had been taken. He had
also made a similar statement before the police. On 8.6.1996,
Madan Mohan and his son Amit Kumar accompanied the police
party. The boy had first taken them to Salarganj gate from where
B he had been kidnapped and thereafter to Sona Arjunpur Railway
Station in Uttar Pradesh. From there, he had taken them to a
garden where he had been kept and from there to a sugar cane
f
field which was at some distance from the Railway Station.
Thereafter, Amit Kumar had taken them to the house of Vidya
c Sagar Chawla at Saharanpur. The Police had been carrying
out raids to apprehend the accused and during one such raid
on 19.6.1996, in which Pawan Kumar (PW-3) had joined, the
police had gone to Sona Arjunpur where a person, whose name
did not come forth in the investigation, had disclosed that Sunder
Pal and Pawan were sleeping under a tree in the field. The police
0
had then raided the field and apprehended both of them. On
interrogation, Sunder Pal made a disclosure statement (Ex.PF)
that out of the ransom of Rs.50,000/-, he had spent Rs.1,000/
and had kept concealed the remaining amount of Rs.49 000/-
wrapped in a polythene paper underneath the ground in the
E fields. His disclosure statement which runs into five pages
interestingly incorporated the entire details of the kidnapping
including the portions wherein even he had not been associated
and bears his thumb impression and is attested by Pawan
Kumar and Jai Narain. Pursuant to this disclosure statement
F Sunder Pal had got recovered Rs.49,000/- currency notes of •
the denomination of Rs.100/- which were taken into possession
through recovery memo Ex.PF/1. Pawan too made an equally
detailed disclosure statement Ex.PG which was reduced into
writing and signed by him and attested by Pawan Kumar and
G Jai Narain in the presence of S1 Krishan Pal and subsequent
thereto, he too got recovered Rs.45,000/- of the denomination •"""
of Rs.100/- each from the field indicated by him in the disclosure
statement. It was taken into possession through recovery memo
Ex.PG/1.
H
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 1148
[PASAYAT, J)

On 20.6.1996, when Madan Mohan was standing at Mayur A
"t
Chowk, a Sub Inspector, an Assistant Sub Inspector and three
constables met him and they together proceeded towards the
Railway Station, Panipat. When they were standing outside the
·cycle stand, Railway Station, Madan Mohan noticed accused
Yashpal coming towards the Railway Station. Yashpal was B
apprehended by the police and on his personal search a country
made pistol and three live cartridges from the left pocket of his
'I
trouser were recovered, which were taken into possession
through recovery memo. On interrogation, in the presence of
Madan Mohan, Yashpal had made a disclosure statement c
Ex.PB in which after giving the details of the persons involved
in the kidnapping and the amount of ransom taken, he disclosed
that his share in the ransom came to Rs.6,00,000/- out of which
Rs.5,75,000/- have been kept in the bag in a Almirah at his
residential house and an amount of Rs.25,0000/- had been kept
D
concealed in the house of his sister in Ludhiana and a pistol
·• had been kept concealed in a house of his sister in Saharanpur.
Pursuant to this disclosure statement, Yashpal got recovered
Rs.5,75,000/- and the black coloured bag bearing the words
"M.tyl. Tayal" embroidered thereon from his house, which were
taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PC, which E
was attested by Madan Mohan and Ramesh Chand.

On the same day, Inspector Krishan Pal (PW-8) joined
Sanjay Tayal in the investigation and after receipt of the secret
information about Vinod, Vikas and Vidya Sagar, he went to F
1
the Truck Union, Panipat and apprehended all of them from a
hut near a tube well. The inspector had recovered a sum of
Rs.42,000/- from a bag which was being carried by Vikas. The
notes were in the four packets of Rs.100/- denomination and
four notes were of the denomination of Rs.500/-. The first and
G
the last notes bore the initials of "MM''. These were taken into
..... ~
possession through recovery memo Ex.PR, which was attested
by the witnesses. A similar search of Vinod led to the recovery
of Rs.41,000/-, which were carried by him in a bag. The notes
were in four packets of Rs.100/; denomination and two packets
H
1149 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R.

A of Rs.500 denomination. The first and the last currency notes of
the packet of Rs.500/- denomination bore tt1e initial "MM", the
signatures of Madan Mohan (PW-1 ). The notes were taken into
possession through recovery memo Ex.PS. A similar search
conducted on the person of Vidya Sagar led to the recovery of
B Rs.24,000/-. All the notes were of the denomination of Rs.500/
- and 12 notes were recovered from the right pocket of Vidya
Sagar while 36 notes were recovered from the back pocket of
f
the pant of Vidya Sagar. All the notes bore the initials "MM",
which were identified by Sanjay Tayal and taken into possession
c through recovery memo Ex.PT. During the personal search of
Vinod and Vikas one pistol of .12 bore alongwith two live
cartridges were recovered from Vinod whereas from Vikas one
pistol .315 bore along with three live cartridges were recovered.
On the same day, Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW-9) along
D with SI Yad Ram and other police officials had gone to Sona
Arjunpur in search of the accused and there one Jaswant Rai
was joined in the investigation. There the police party got secret
information that Virender, Sohan and Vishav Pal were coming
from Shamli to Panipat on a Yamaha motor cycle whereupon
E he set up a naka. On their arrival, Sohan, Virender and Vishav
Pal were apprehended and a sum of Rs.40,000/-were recovered
from Vishav Pal, which were carried by him in a bag of black
colour, which he was holding in his hand . .A similar sum of
Rs.40 ,000/- was recovered from a bag which was being carried
F by Sohan. All the notes were of the denomination of Rs.100/-
each and bore the initials "MM" of Madan Mohan complainant,
who has been described as Madan Gopal-complainant. On the
personal search of Virender, 86 currency notes of the
denomination of Rs.500/- each i.e. Rs.43,000/-were recovered.
G All the aforesaid currency notes were recovered through
recovery memos Ex.PJ, PK and PL respectively. The motorcycle
was also taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PM.
On 4.8.1996, Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW-9) along with
SI Randhir Singh and other police officials and the complainant
H went to Village Sona Arjunpur in search of Jagbir appellant
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 1150
[PASAYAT, J.]

where he came to know that he had gone to Panipat in order to A
surrender in the Court. When the police party was present near
the bridge ofYamuna, the Inspector received secret information
that Jagbir had gone to Panipat. When the police party reached
Sanjay Chowk, Panipat, the complainant pointed out towards
Jagbir who was standing near a three wheeler. He was B
apprehended. On 7.8.1996, on interrogation Jagbir made a
disclosure statement Ex.PD to the effect that he had kept
concealed an amount of Rs.5,000/- in a wax paper in the Baithak
of his house situated in Village Sona Arjunpur. Thereafter, in
pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a sum c
of Rs.5,000/- of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. The same
were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PE. One
of the notes was bearing the initial of "MM".
5. On completion of the investigation, a challan was put in
the Court of the lllaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to D
the Court of Sessions as the offences disclosed therein were
exclusively triable by that Court.
6. On going through the challan papers, Learned Additional
Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 364-A IPC
against alrthe appellants to which they pleaded not guilty. E

7. In order to bri;1g home charge against the appellants,
the prosecution examined Madan Mohan (PW-1), Amit Kumar
(PW2), Pawan Kumar (PW3), Faqir Chand (PW4), SI Yad Ram
(PW5), ASI Daiei Singh (PW6), Inspector Rajinder Singh (PW7), F
SI Krishan Pal (PW8) and Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW9).
8. When examination under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in order to explain
the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against
them, Vikas, Vishav Pal, Pawan Kumar, Vidya Sagar, Sunder G
Pal, Vined, Schan and Jagbir pleaded innocence and false
"' implication.
9. Placing reliance on the evidence of victim Amit K1:1mar
(PW-2), Madan Mohan (PW-1) and Pawan Kumar (PW-3) as
H
1151 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A noted above the accused persons were found guilty and "!'
sentenced.

10. Before the High Court stand of the appellant was that
offence under Section 364-A IPC has not been made out and in
any event the seized money have not been produced during
B trial which prompted the High Court to take serious note of the
lapse. But the High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence
of the appellant. f

11. It was pleaded that the prosecution version should not
c have been accepted. In any event, according to learned counsel
for the appellant Section 364-A has no application.

12. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State t
submitted that the High Court erroneously observed that the
seized notes were not produced during trial. In any event the
D High Court was right in dismissing the appeal. It would be
appropriate to deal with the plea that seized currency notes were
not produced. Following observations of the trial Court are
relevant:
" ... Similarly accused Pawan Kumar suffered a disclosure
E
statement Ex.PG and got recovered an amount of
Rs.45,000/- which was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PG/1. Ex.P4 is the currency notes. He also prepared
the rough site-plans Ex.PP and Ex.PQ regarding the
aforesaid recoveries. He further stated that on 20.6.1996
F he joined Sanjay Tayal in the investigation of this case and
after receipt of a secret information, he rushed to Truck
Union Panipat and there he apprehended accused Vinod,
Vikas and Vidya Sagar. He conducted the personal search
of the aforesaid accused and recovered an amount of
G Rs.42,000/- from accused Vikas. The currency notes were
in four packets of Rs.100/- denomination and four notes ... ' r
were of the denomination of Rs.500/-. The first and the
last note of each packet were bearing the initial of "M.M."
which also identified Sanjay Tayal of his brother Madan
H Mohan. He took the same into possession and the bag is
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 1152
[PASAYAT, J.]

Ex.P7 and currency notes are Ex.P4. The recovery memo A
is Ex.PR. He also conducted the personal search ofVinod
and recovered an amount of Rs.41,000/- which were in a
bag which is Ex.P8 which accused was carrying. The
aforesaid currency notes were in four packets having a
denomination of Rs.100/- and two notes were of the B
denomination of Rs.500/- The first and the last note of
every bundle was having the initial of "M.M." and PW Sanjay
Tayal identified the same. The currency notes were Ex.P4.
He took into possession the bag Ex.PS which bears his
signature as well as signature of Sanjay Tayal. He also c
conducted the personal search of Vidya Sagar accused
and recovered a sum of Rs.24,000/-. All the currency notes
were of the denomination of Rs.500/-. The 12 notes were
recovered from the right pocket of the accused Vidya
Sagar whereas 36 currency notes were recovered from
0
back side pocket of the pant of the accused. All the currency
notes were bearing the initial of Madan Mohan which were
identified by Sanjay Tayal."
13. It is to be noted that before the High Court challenge
was not raised to shake the credibility of the testimony of Madan E
Mohan (PW-1) and Amit Kumar (PW-2) during arguments.

14. Section 364-A deals with 'Kidnapping for ransom etc.'
This Section reads as follows:
"Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a F
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 G
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 H
1153 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A fine."

15. 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.
8
16. 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
c the victim from any place. The case at hand falls in the second
category.
17. 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
D held out by the accused was fulfilled by him, the question is:
whether he was acting in a bonafide manner?
18. The offence of abduction is a continuing offence. This
Section was amended in 1992 by Act XLI I of 1993 with effect
E 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. l

19. To attract the provisions of Section 364-A what is
F 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.
20. To pay a ransom as per Black's Law Dictionary means
G "to pay price or demand for ransom". The word "demand" means
"to claim as one's 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
H
VINOD v. STATE OF HARYANA 1154
[PASAYAT, J.]

. definition as pointed out above would show that the demand A
has to be communicated. It is an imperative request or a claim
made.
21. When the evidence on record is analysed in the
background of Section 364~A IPC, the inevitable conclusion is
that the prosecution has clearly established commission of the 8
said offence. Considering the alarming rise in kidnapping young
children for ransom, the legislature has in its wisdom provided
for stringent sentence. Therefore, the High Court rightly refused
to interfere in the matter. In our view, the impugned judgment of
th~ High Court does not suffer from any in~rmity to warrant C
interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
N.J. Appeal dismissed .

.