Citation: Akram Khan Vs State of West Bengal, AIR 2011 SC 308
Date of Judgement: 05/12/ 2011
Equivalent Citation: C.R.A. No. 198 of 2006
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2011
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Petitioner/Appellant: Akram Khan
Defendant/Respondent: State of West Bengal
Bench: Hon’ble Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon’ble Justice J. Chelameswar
Court: Supreme Court of India
- Indian Penal Code, Sections 120B, 364A
- Malleshi Vs State of Karnataka (2004) 8 SCC 95
- Vinod Vs State of Haryana AIR 2008 SC 1142
- Mulla and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508
- The case is related to the kidnapping of a minor boy named ‘Vicky Prasad Rajak’ from his lawful guardian ‘Mahendra Prasad Rajak’
- In the afternoon of 17/03/2000, the boy Vicky was found missing. On the same day, his father reported the matter to the Park Street Police station.
- On 20/03/2000 his father received a telephone call for a ransom of Rs. 10 lakhs on the account of the boy ‘Vicky’.
- On 21/03/2000 ‘Mahendra again received the call for ransom but this time the amount was reduced to 7 lakhs and the caller told him that he had the money because of the sale of his shop.
- Several calls for ransom followed on and ultimately on 01/04/2000 the ransom amount was reduced to 3lakhs. Furthermore, on 04/04/2021 the father received a telephonic message asking him to go to Jamalpur Railway station with 3 lakhs rupees. But, at the railway station, there is no one to receive the ransom.
- On enquiring with his wife, he found that there was another call for ransom in which they asked him to go to Saheb Ganj Station by Danapur Express. But on the train, one of the accused ‘Afsal’ has asked him to get down at Ghoga Station and gave the ransom money. But he refused to do this and went to Saheb Ganj where no one approached him.
- Again on 13/04/2000 complainant received a message from the caller directing him to come to Ghogha Railway Station. When he went there no one came. Then at night, a joint raid was conducted by Calcutta police along with Bihar police and they arrested five accused persons: Md. Kalim, Akram Khan, Afsal khan, Md. Javed and Md. Mehtab.
- The kidnapped boy ‘Vicky’ was rescued from the house of Mehtab.
- Later 3 more accused was arrested from Calcutta they were Zakir Khan, Nazamul Khan and Md. Dilshad. Zakir Khan was the ex-employee of the complainant.
- The additional session judge condemned seven charged individuals to go through imprisonment forever and to pay a fine of Rs 5000/ – each in default, to languish thorough detainment over one year each for a commission of an offence under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code and further detainment forever and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ – each, in default, to languish thorough detainment over one year each for the commission of an offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and the two sentences were to run simultaneously. Notwithstanding, Md. Nazamul Khan, one of the denounced was absolved as not viewed entirely blameworthy.
- Against the said judgment, every one of the seven denounced people including the litigant thus recorded an allure being C.R.A. No. 198 of 2006 under the steady gaze of the High Court at Calcutta. By the decried judgment dated 29.06.2010, the High Court absolved Md. Javed, Md. Dilshad and Md. Mehtab provided them with the advantage of uncertainty and insisted the conviction and sentence forced on Akram Khan-appealing party thus, Afzal Khan, Md. Zakir Khan and Md. Kalim.
- Being distressed by the said judgment, Akram Khan- appellant herein alone has filed this appeal by way of special leave before the Supreme Court.
- Regardless of whether the sentence forced by the preliminary court and affirmed by the high court is pertinent or not?
Contention of Petitioner/Appellant:
Name of the Counsel: Mr Pranab Kumar Mullick
The counsel for the petitioner contended that:
- The petitioner was not guilty under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code i.e., kidnapping for ransom and if any case he is punishable that is under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code for kidnapping alone.
- Furthermore, he said that if the appellant is convicted under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code , and in this section, the maximum punishment that is granted is 7 years and the appellant has already served 11 years and 7 months in jail. Therefore, the appellant must be given release forthwith.
Contention of Respondent/ Defendant:
Name of the Counsel: Mr Chanchal Kr. Ganguli
The counsel for the Respondent presented witness:
- Prantosh Kumar Gupta, an employee of the telephonic booth where the appellant went for calling the lawful guardian of the boy. The witness said that he had seen the boy with Akram Khan not only once but two or three times when he came for calling the guardians.
The Supreme Court said that:
Considering the disturbing ascent in grabbing small kids for delivery, the law making body in its insight accommodated rigid sentence. Thus, we are of the view that in those cases whoever captures or kidnaps small kids for recovery, no tolerance be displayed in granting sentence, then again, it should be managed in the most extreme conceivable way and a commitment lays on the courts too.
For the situation close by, we are fulfilled that the High Court was directly in keeping everything under the control of conviction and sentence of the appealing party thus and we are fulfilled that the upbraided judgment of the High Court doesn’t experience the ill effects of any sickness to warrant impedance.
Thus, the Appeal failed and was Dismissed accordingly.
- The worry of Parliament in managing cases identifying with abducting for recovery, wrongdoing which required a hindrance discipline, independent of the way that capturing had not brought about the death of the person in question.
Many cases keep close by for a long time until a decision is passed upon them and surprisingly after that can be taken to a higher court straight up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and along these lines in numerous cases the blamed as of now finishes a huge part for his detainment whenever indicted while battling this case and thusly this choice of the High Court of Calcutta showed that how the legal executive perceives this issue and gives a valiant effort to give the best equity.
Drafted by: Aditi Bharti, Shankarrao Chavan Law College
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: December 03, 2021 at 17:15 IST