2007 (5) TMI 689 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the prosecution and trial under Section 364A IPC.
2. Sufficiency of evidence to establish the charges under Sections 364A, 365, 343 read with 120B, and 346 read with 120B IPC.
3. Legality of the conviction of Suman Sood under Section 364A read with 120B IPC.
4. Validity of the extradition process and its implications on the charges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the prosecution and trial under Section 364A IPC:
The appellants contended that the Extradition Treaty between the USA and Great Britain in 1931 did not include the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC, rendering their prosecution under this section illegal. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Extradition Treaty of 1931 was still in force and included offences of kidnapping and abduction. Furthermore, the Final Judgment of Certification of Extraditability explicitly mentioned Section 364A IPC, thereby validating the prosecution under this section.

2. Sufficiency of evidence to establish the charges under Sections 364A, 365, 343 read with 120B, and 346 read with 120B IPC:
The court found substantial evidence supporting the charges against Daya Singh and Suman Sood. Testimonies from multiple witnesses, including the victim Rajendra Mirdha, corroborated the kidnapping and detention. The prosecution established that Daya Singh and Suman Sood were involved in the conspiracy and execution of the kidnapping. The evidence showed that Daya Singh was directly involved in the abduction and detention, and Suman Sood was aware of and participated in the conspiracy by providing food and medicine to the victim.

3. Legality of the conviction of Suman Sood under Section 364A read with 120B IPC:
The trial court acquitted Suman Sood of the charge under Section 364A IPC, but the High Court reversed this acquittal. The Supreme Court found no direct or indirect evidence linking Suman Sood to the demand for ransom. It was noted that Suman Sood was not part of the kidnapping team and had not made any ransom demands. The court upheld her conviction for the lesser offences under Sections 365/120B, 343/120B, and 346/120B IPC but set aside her conviction under Section 364A read with 120B IPC, restoring the trial court's acquittal on this charge.

4. Validity of the extradition process and its implications on the charges:
The court addressed the appellants' challenge to the extradition process, noting that the 1931 Extradition Treaty was applicable and included offences of kidnapping and abduction. The extradition orders explicitly mentioned Section 364A IPC, validating the prosecution under this section. The court also clarified that under the amended Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, a person extradited for a higher offence could be tried for a lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved. Therefore, Suman Sood's prosecution under Section 365 IPC, a lesser offence than Section 364A IPC, was lawful.

Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed Daya Singh's appeal, upholding his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 364A, 365, 343 read with 120B, and 346 read with 120B IPC. For Suman Sood, the court upheld her conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 365/120B, 343/120B, and 346/120B IPC but set aside her conviction under Section 364A read with 120B IPC, restoring her acquittal on this charge by the trial court.

← Previous Next →