Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohammad Murtuza Mohammed Mosin Shaikh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 363, 364A read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 11 April 2002, the appellant, who worked in the factory of PW2 Abdul Gaffar Raien, came to the residence of PW1 Zubeda Khatun and told her that her husband was calling their son Abdul Rehman. Believing him, she sent the child with the appellant. Later, when PW2 returned home, they realized the child was missing. At about 1:15 PM, PW2 received a phone call demanding Rs. 1 lakh for the return of the child. They lodged a complaint at the police station. The next morning, the police informed them that they had apprehended the appellant along with the child from Mira Datta Darga, Darukhana Shivri. The appellant was identified by PW1 and PW2. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence, including the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, and found that the prosecution had proved the kidnapping and ransom demand beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the appellant was known to the family as a worker, and the child was recovered from his custody. The demand for ransom was corroborated by the phone call. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Abduction - Section 363 IPC - Abduction of minor - The appellant, a worker in the factory of the complainant, took away the minor son of the complainant on the pretext of taking him to his father, who had not sent for him. The child was recovered the next day from a dargah along with the appellant. The court held that the prosecution proved the offence of kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 2-5). B) Criminal Law - Demand of Ransom - Section 364A IPC - Kidnapping for ransom - The appellant demanded Rs. 1 lakh from the father of the child over phone for handing over the child. The court held that the demand of ransom was established through the testimony of the parents and the phone call evidence, and the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 364A IPC (Paras 4, 10). C) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Section 120B IPC - Criminal conspiracy - The appellant was charged with conspiracy along with other accused, but the court found that the evidence did not establish any conspiracy beyond the appellant's individual acts. However, the conviction under Section 120B was upheld as the appellant acted in concert with unknown persons (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 364A read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 363, 364A read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code are upheld.
Law Points
- Kidnapping
- Ransom demand
- Circumstantial evidence
- Identification of accused
- Section 364A IPC
- Section 363 IPC
- Section 120B IPC
- Life imprisonment
