Case Brief on "Shaikh Ahmed vs State of Telangana, 2021" by Yamini Shekhawat

 

By

Yamini Shekhawat

B.Com LL.B, 4th Year/7th Semester,

Mody University, Rajasthan

Shaikh Ahmed vs State of Telangana, 2021
Criminal Appeal No.533 of 2021
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.308 of 2021

 

Date of Judgement- 28^th June, 2021

Bench- Justice Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy

 

Abstract

Kidnapping is not a new offence, it has been in the surveillance since decades but with the pace of time and advancement of technologies, the methods of kidnapping has also taken a leap.

Years back, kidnapping was in picture as a way to abduct children to use them as slave. Back in the year 1673, the American Colonies carried the practice of stealing the children, to make them their servants and laborer’s. The word Kidnapping originally can be divided into two words kid and napping which means snatching or stealing of kid that is why the offence is known as Kidnapping since the ages

The methods or ways of committing the offence of kidnapping depends upon the motive and thinking of the kidnapper. If we talk specifically about the kidnapping for ransom than the person of high earning capacity, high profile and appearance are targeted more as compared to the rest of the individuals.

One of the most common or more often used method or mode of kidnapping which is relevant in the present era is Kidnapping for Ransom.

Kidnapping for Ransom is one of the well-known variants of kidnapping where the kidnapper seeks for the payment from either the family, relatives, friends or from the employer of the kidnapped person in order to release him.

 

Introduction

The case of Ahmed Shaikh v State of Telangana was decided by the Supreme Court of India, on 28^th June,2021 by the Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R Subhash Reddy. The case deals with the offence of Kidnapping for Ransom. In this case the Supreme Court of India held that-

No conviction under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, if kidnapper treats victim in “a good manner”: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in this case of Shaikh Ahmed v State of Telangana gave the judgement that in order to prove the offence of Kidnapping for Ransom, under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, all the essential ingredients of the Section 364A must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

 

Summary of the facts of the Case

The facts of the case revolve around a boy named Prateek Gupta, a student of 6^th standard who was kidnapped by an auto driver for ransom.

The victim in this case, Prateek Gupta, was a student in St. Mary’s High School, Hyderabad, in 6^th standard. Prateek’s school was located in Regimental Bazaar, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. On February 3, 2011, Prateek went to a picnic which was organized by his school and nearby 3’o clock Prateek returned back to his school from picnic.

Prateek’s parents had fixed a regular auto for Prateek, which used to drop him home on regular basis from the school. On 3^rd February, 2011 the auto fixed by Prateek’s parents unfortunately did not turn up.

Prateek after waiting for his auto for an hour, decided to call his father from the cellphone of one of his school teachers, Kumari Sujata Rani. In the conversation with his father, Prateek was instructed by him to take another auto to go home. Following the instruction of his Father, Prateek took another auto which was driven by the accused, Shaikh Ahmed Khan, to take him home and thus Prateek boarded the auto.

Shaikh Ahmed Khan, after driving to a short distance, took Prateek to some unknown place. On being asked by Prateek about the same, the accused, Ahmed Shaikh replied that this is a short cut and promised Prateek that he will surely drop him at his home, and said not to worry about it.

The accused, took Prateek to his sister’s house and told Prateek that he would definitely drop him at his home next morning. Ahmed Shaikh took the contact number of Prateek’s father from him stating that he wants to call him for confirming the address of his home. The accused called the Prateek’s father and stated that his son, Prateek is under his custody and in order to release him, he demanded a ransom of Rs.2,00,000 from Prateek’s father.

After receiving the phone call from the accused, Ahmed Shaikh, Prateek’s father decided to lodge a complaint in the Police Station. Prateek’s father went to the Police Station and lodged a report against Ahmed Shaikh. Police Officer after registering the complaint, handed over the case for further investigation.

Prateek’s father was instructed by the accused to come to Pillar No. 99, P.V. Narsimha Rao Stadium by foot. The accused, Ahmed Shaikh was already present at the said location along with Prateek, when Prateek’s father along with the ransom money with him, reached on the prescribed location. While Prateek’s father was trying to handover the ransom amount of Rs.2,00,000 to the accused, the Police Officers who were there in mufti covered Ahmed Shaikh and took him into custody. Prateek was found seated in the auto of accused, on a short distance.

The learned Sessions Judge after considering and looking into all the evidences, presented by the witnesses, held that the prosecution has clearly found the accused, Ahmed Shaikh, guilty for the offence of Kidnapping for Ransom as provided under Section 364A, of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

The accused filed an appeal in the High Court but his Appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution has proved the accused, Ahmed Shaikh, guilty of the offence ‘Kidnapping for Ransom’, beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused shall be punishable for the offence.

 

Issues

There were four questions which were raised before the court in this case-

I.                Section 364A, of IPC lays downs certain essential ingredients for the offence of Kidnapping for Ransom. What are those Essential ingredients?

II.              That whether all the essential ingredients that are provided under Section 364A, of Indian Penal Code, need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, for conviction under Section 364A, of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

III.            Whether the conviction under Section 364A, of IPC can vitiate if any one of the essential ingredients given under Section 364A, of IPC, does not establish?

IV.            Whether the Learned Sessions Judge and High Court recorded any evidence and findings that the victim was threatened to cause death or hurt by the accused or the conduct of the accused gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of putting the victim to cause death or to cause harm?

 

Contentions from the Appellant Side

Learned Council from the Appellant side contented that all the essential ingredients which are provided under Section 364A of IPC, which needs to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution, has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution and thus the conviction of the accused, Ahmed Shaikh under Section 364A of IPC, is not sustainable.

The Council from the Appellant side also contended that the court has neither established any evidence nor any findings which proves that the accused has threatened the victim to cause death or hurt nor the conduct of Ahmed Shaikh, the accused, gave rise to reasonable apprehension that the victim may be put to death or hurt.

It was also referred that the victim, Prateek Gupta has himself stated that any kind of threat to cause death or hurt to him was not extended by the accused. Also, Prateek’s father, at the time of recording of statements of the prosecution, expressed that his son, Prateek Gupta was treated in a well manner by the Kidnapper.

Hence, the judgement pronounced by the Learned Sessions Judge and High Court needs to be justified.

 

Judgement of the Apex Court

While pronouncing the judgement of this case, the bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R. Subhash Reddy laid down certain essential ingredients of Section 364A of IPC, which needs to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution, in order to convict an accused under Section 364A of IPC, i.e., Kidnapping for Ransom.

The essential ingredients laid down are:

a)     Kidnapping or abducting any person or keeping any person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and

b)     the accused threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by the conduct of the accused it giver rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt; or

c)     in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or any Governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, causes hurt or death to such person.

 It was held by the apex court of India that in order for securing conviction under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, all the essential ingredients that are provided under Section 364A of IPC, must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution.

The court held that for the offence of Kidnapping for Ransom under Section 364A of IPC, only proving the kidnap of a person is not sufficient but it must also be proved by the prosecution that threat to cause death or hurt was also extended to the victim or the conduct of kidnapper gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the kidnapped person may be put to death or hurt.

The court in its judgement stated that after fulfilling the first essential ingredient of Section 364A of IPC, one more ingredient is required to be fulfilled along with the first one because the conjunction ‘and’ is used in between the first and second ingredients and thus both the conditions must be fulfilled collectively. Hence, for conviction under Section 364A of IPC, i.e., Kidnapping for Ransom, along with first essential ingredient/condition, either condition second or condition third is also necessary to be proved.

The court also observed the statements of the victim, Prateek Gupta and his father which states “that no threat was extended to him by the accused of causing death or hurt to him and also he was treated in a well manner by the kidnapper”.

 On the basis of above observations, the apex court set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 364A of IPC, 1860.

However, it was proved from the evidence and findings, that the appellant kidnapped Prateek for ransom and also demanded the ransom for his release. Thus, the court convicted the accused under Section 363 of IPC, i.e., Kidnapping, and sentenced him imprisonment for a term of 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

The court instructed that the accused shall be released, after the completion of seven years of imprisonment.

 

Conclusion

There are three phases in Section 364A of IPC, the first one is Kidnapping or abduction, the second one is when threat to cause death or hurt is extended by the Kidnapper along with the demand for ransom and the third one is when the demand for ransom is not fulfilled, then causing death or hurt.

So, in order to convict an accused under Section 364A of IPC, all the essential conditions/ingredients which are provided under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution.