Supreme Court upholds life term for kidnappers

The Supreme Court on Monday called for deterrent punishment of life imprisonment  in cases relating to kidnapping for ransom, particularly in cases involving children.

A bench of justices comprising of P. Sathasivam and  J. Chelameshwar said that it is relevant to point out that the punishment in Section 364 A of IPC (kidnapping for ransom) had been introduced by virue of an amendment in 1993. It is clear from the statement of objects and reasons the concern of Parliament in dealing with the cases realting to kidnapping for ransom, a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, irrespective of th fact that kidnapping has not resulted in death of the victim.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam pointed out that considering the alarming rise in the kidnapping  of children for ransom, the legislature in its wisdom provided for stringent sentence. The Bench said that, they are of the view that in those cases whoever kidnaps or abducts young children for ransom, should not be given any leniency while awarding sentence, on the other hand, it must be dealt  with in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on the courts as well.

The prosecution case is related to kidnapping of a young boy named, Vicky Prasad Rajak, from his lawful guardian Mahendra Prasad Rajak, and then keeping him in detention. Thereafter, the appellant Akram Khan and six other accused persons started giving threat calls demanding Rs. 7 lakhs as ransom from the boy's guardian. This was later reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs. They said that if he failed to respond to the calls, the boy would be murdered.

The police in Kolkata raided and apprehended the accused and a fast track court, while acquitting the three accused, awarded life sentence to four of them, including the appellant. This was later on confirmed by the Calcutta High Court. The appellant filed the present appeal against this judgment.

The Bench said that it is a settled legal position that the punishment must fit the crime. It is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. As a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate befitting the crime.

While dismissing the appeal, the Bench said that they are satisfied that the High Court was right in maintaining the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant. They are satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

News reported by AR for Newsvision newspaper