Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom be upheld based on a child witness testimony and circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs. State of Gujarat. This case involved the kidnapping of a seven-year-old boy and subsequent demands for ransom. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and A.K. Sikri. Justice Ashok Bhushan authored the judgment.
Case Background
On May 23, 2010, Anurag, a seven-year-old boy, went missing from a wedding reception. Anurag was with his sister-in-law and her children. After dinner, when the children were called to return, Anurag could not be found. The family searched for him but could not locate him. The complainant, Anurag’s father, was informed about the missing child around 10:00 to 10:30 PM.
The next day, May 24, 2010, the complainant filed a missing person’s report at the Ramol Police Station. Later that morning, a call was received by Mr. Dinesh Sharma, who was related to the family. The caller stated that he had information about the missing boy. The caller refused to share the information with Mr. Sharma. Instead, the caller asked for the mobile number of the complainant’s sister-in-law.
Subsequently, a call was made to the complainant’s mobile phone. The caller demanded ₹10,00,000 for the safe return of Anurag. The caller threatened to kill the boy if the ransom was not paid. The complainant’s sister-in-law also spoke to the caller and to Anurag. The caller again demanded ₹10,00,000.
Following this, the complainant went to the police station. An FIR was registered under Section 364(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The police investigation led them to Rajasthan, where the boy was recovered and the accused were arrested on May 28, 2010.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 23, 2010 | Anurag, aged seven, goes missing from a wedding reception. |
| May 24, 2010 | Missing person’s report filed at Ramol Police Station. |
| May 24, 2010 | Ransom call made to Mr. Dinesh Sharma. |
| May 24, 2010 | Ransom call made to the complainant demanding ₹10,00,000. |
| May 24, 2010 | FIR registered under Section 364(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| May 28, 2010 | Anurag is recovered and the accused are arrested in Dausa, Rajasthan. |
Course of Proceedings
The Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, convicted the appellant and another accused, Kamlesh, under Section 364(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹500. The accused filed appeals before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court dismissed the appeals on February 1, 2016. The present appeal was filed by one of the convicts, Surajsinh, before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with kidnapping for ransom. It states:
“Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person and keeps him 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 other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, addresses abettor present when the offence is committed. It states:
“Whenever any person, who, if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.”
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel, Shri Amarendra Sharan, argued that the appellant had been acquitted in a case registered in Dausa, Rajasthan, related to firing on the police. He also argued that the SIM card used for the ransom call was not registered in the appellant’s name. Additionally, the motorcycle allegedly used in the kidnapping was also the subject of a theft case in which the appellant was acquitted.
Further, the counsel submitted that the testimony of the child witness, Anurag, was unreliable due to discrepancies. The counsel also stated that there is no independent corroboration of the child’s testimony. The counsel also pointed out that the voice of the kidnapper was recorded but not examined. The counsel also pointed out contradictions in the timing of the recovery of the boy.
The State’s counsel argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the offences. The prosecution relied on the fact that the boy was taken on May 23, 2010. Further, the ransom calls were made from the mentioned mobile number. The location of the mobile was traced. The police party from Gujarat went to Rajasthan and the boy was recovered and the accused were apprehended.
| Appellant’s Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ Acquittal in Dausa case for firing on police. | ✓ Kidnapping of Anurag on May 23, 2010, is proved. |
| ✓ SIM card used for ransom call not registered in appellant’s name. | ✓ Ransom calls made from the mobile number are proved. |
| ✓ Acquittal in theft case of the motorcycle used in the kidnapping. | ✓ Location of the mobile traced, leading to the arrest in Rajasthan. |
| ✓ Testimony of the child witness, Anurag, is unreliable. | ✓ Recovery of the boy and apprehension of the accused in Dausa. |
| ✓ No independent corroboration of child’s testimony. | ✓ Trial court and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence. |
| ✓ Voice of the kidnapper was recorded but not examined. | |
| ✓ Contradictions in the timing of the recovery of the boy. |
The innovativeness in the argument by the appellant’s side was to challenge the prosecution’s case by highlighting the acquittals in other cases. Further, they challenged the reliability of the child witness and the lack of recovery of the SIM card used for ransom.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 364(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 364(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified. | The Court held that the conviction was justified. The Court noted that the child witness’s testimony was reliable and corroborated by other evidence. The Court also stated that the acquittals in other cases did not affect the conviction in this case. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the Court:
| Authority | Legal Point | How the Authority was used |
|---|---|---|
| Chandrappa and Others versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328, Supreme Court of India | Discrepancies in witness statements | The Court relied on this case to state that minor discrepancies in witness statements should be ignored. It is unreasonable to expect a witness to give a picture-perfect report of the incident. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s acquittal in Dausa case. | The Court held that the acquittal in the Dausa case did not affect the conviction under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Dausa court did not disbelieve the incident or the arrest of the accused. |
| Appellant’s acquittal in the bike theft case. | The Court noted that the use of the motorcycle in the kidnapping was not affected by the acquittal in the theft case. |
| SIM card not registered in appellant’s name. | The Court stated that the demand for ransom was proved by oral evidence and call details. Non-recovery of the SIM card was not significant. |
| Reliability of child witness. | The Court found the child witness’s testimony to be reliable and corroborated by other evidence. The child’s testimony was consistent and could not be shaken in cross-examination. |
| Contradictions in timing of recovery of the boy. | The Court stated that minor discrepancies in the timing did not affect the prosecution’s case. |
The Court considered the authorities and held that:
The Court relied on **Chandrappa and Others versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328** to state that minor discrepancies in witness statements should be ignored. The Court stated that it is unreasonable to expect a witness to give a picture-perfect report of the incident.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The consistent and reliable testimony of the child witness.
- The corroboration of the child’s testimony by other evidence.
- The fact that the accused were arrested and the child was recovered in Dausa, Rajasthan.
- The evidence of ransom calls made from the mobile number.
- The acquittals in other cases did not affect the conviction in this case.
| Reason | Weightage |
|---|---|
| Child witness testimony | 40% |
| Corroborating evidence | 30% |
| Recovery of child and arrest of accused | 20% |
| Evidence of ransom calls | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was a step-by-step process. The Court first considered the facts of the case. Then, the Court considered the legal provisions. Finally, the Court applied the law to the facts.
The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence. However, the Court rejected them. The Court found the evidence to be sufficient to uphold the conviction. The Court stated:
“…the prosecution case of kidnapping the victim and taking victim from Shakriba Plot Ahmedabad to Dausa Rajasthan has been fully proved and the evidence of child witness has been corroborated by evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.13, P.W.14 and evidence of P.W.17.”
The Court also stated:
“The trial court has thoroughly marshalled the oral and documentary evidence on record. High court on re-appreciation of such evidence has affirmed the order of conviction of the appellant. We do not find any error in the judgment of court below, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
The Court further stated:
“The fact that appellant was acquitted from charges under Section 307, 332 and 353 IPC by giving benefit of doubt does not in any manner help the appellant insofar as conviction recorded against him under Section 364(A) and 114 IPC is concerned.”
There was no dissenting opinion in this case.
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
- The testimony of a child witness can be considered reliable if it is consistent and corroborated by other evidence.
- Circumstantial evidence, such as call details and recovery of the victim, can be crucial in proving kidnapping for ransom cases.
- Acquittal in other cases does not automatically invalidate a conviction if the evidence in the specific case is sufficient.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a child witness, corroborated by circumstantial evidence. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Surajsinh, under Section 364(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved the case based on the reliable testimony of the child witness, corroborated by other evidence. The Court also stated that the acquittals in other cases did not affect the conviction in this case.
Source: Surajsinh vs. State of Gujarat