Whoever kidnaps any person and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life: High Court Of New Delhi
The petitioner challenges the order dated 18th September 2021 passed by the learned ASJ directing framing of charge for offences punishable under Section 364A IPC against the petitioner and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA, in the matter PRIYANSHU KUMAR Vs STATE [CRL.REV.P. 329/2021] dealt with an issue mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was in a very good relationship with the victim family and usually took the child to play with him. The demand for money, even as per the Whatsapp chat does not relate to the victim and even in the alleged demands, the petitioner CRL.REV.P.329/2021 repeatedly stated that he will send the child. Also, they mentioned, there was no apprehension of death or hurt to the child, therefore the ingredients of Section 364A IPC are not made out and hence, no charge for an offence punishable under Section 364A IPC could be framed.
The above-noted FIR was registered on the complaint of the mother of the victim child Karthik Kaushik aged 7 months. She stated that they had a tenant, namely, Suresh Kumar on the second floor, who was residing with his son Priyanshu Kumar, daughter Bhawana, elder son Ravish and the wife of the elder son, namely, Pooja.
On 9 th April 2021 at around 10.50 AM, Priyanshu Kumar came to their floor and asked the complainant about the minor child Karthik, to which she stated that he was sleeping. Priyanshu Kumar again came back at 11.00 AM. By that time also the minor child was sleeping, so he went and came again at noon, and also they told that the complainant asked for the number of Priyanshu and then made a phone call. However, the petitioner did not pick up the phone. She messaged him and he still did not reply. Thereafter she received messages for the demand of money from the petitioner. She called up her husband whose phone was with her CRL.REV.P.329/2021 Page 3 of 5 brothers-in-law and told him that Priyanshu Kumar has taken Karthik and was demanding money. Thus, the FIR in question was lodged.
Meanwhile the statement of the complainant, the prosecution has also relied upon the messages between the complainant and the petitioner, wherein he is repeatedly demanding ₹40 lakhs in his HDFC account and has thereafter also stated that whatever they have, they should send and only thereafter, he will send the child. He clarified that he had no enmity with the child but he will send him only after the money was received.
The conversation between the petitioner and the complainants on the Whatsapp chat not only shows how hurt was caused to the baby child but is also sufficient to create an apprehension in the mind of the complainants concerning the safety of the child, even though the CRL.REV.P.329/2021 petitioner also stated that he would do nothing to the child but he was frustrated with his life and He further stated that he should not be given the threat of the police because he was a software engineer too.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since there was no hurt caused to the child nor any apprehension of hurt, necessary ingredients of Section 364A IPC are not satisfied. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. The child was kept as ‘kidnapped’ CRL.REV.P.329/2021 till the ransom demand was met. As the child was in a bad condition crying, the child being 7 months old who could not have stayed without the mother, it is evident that bodily pain.
The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it believed that- “Hence, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge framing a charge under Section 364A IPC against the petitioner later Petition was dismissed”.
Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS