Abduction

Accused persons were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for abducting daughter of complainant and committing Zina with her

Validity

Prosecution story of forcible abduction and rape of alleged abductee was the result of an afterthought of abductee and her family members after return of alleged abductee to her parents' house

No ornament or cash amount was recovered from any accused

As per medico legal report, no mark of violence was noted on the body of abductee

Neither it was a case of forcible abduction punishable under section 365-B, P.P.C. nor it was a case of forcible intercourse/rape punishable under section 376 P.P.C.

In view of the provisions of section 496-B, P.P.C., the abductee was not liable to be convicted and sentenced for offence of fornication (Zina with consent) as she was not made accused in the case by Police

No charge was framed against abductee by Trial Court and she was not provided a chance to cross-examine prosecution witnesses to defend herself

Abductee could not be convicted and sentenced in absence of fulfilment of such legal requirements

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence of accused for the charge under Section 376(i) P.P.C. but he was convicted under section 496-B, P.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed.

In order to prove a case of kidnapping for ransom no ransom amount needed to be paid or recovered but only proof that a demand for ransom was made

Abductee/witness stated in his evidence that after one or two days they obtained from them cell No's of their family members and made conversation with them and after 7 to 8 days the accused recorded their voices with dialogues whereby they were compelling them to convey their demand of ransom amount to our family members and that they understood that by recording their voices for ransom amount such voice recordings were sent to another place to another person belonging to the accused to convey their voices of the ransom demand to their family members

Ransom amount was initially for one crore and 40 tola gold for the release of each person but was later reduced to 15/20 lacs for each person

Other abductee corroborated the ransom demands by the accused and that they would face dire consequences if the ransom was not paid

Another abductee also corroborated such ransom demands and threats

Such fact showed that the demand appeared to have been made from another location was corroborated by the CDR which showed that many calls which were made during the period whilst the abductees were in captivity were made to the complainant and that those calls emanated from other Province where one of the absconding kidnappers was from

Such ransom demands were also corroborated by two other witnesses who were both related to the abductees and received the said ransom demands and reported the matter to the police

Ransom demands were made for the release of the abductees which were passed on through the persons holding the abductees in captivity

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

In private international law the term 'abduction' carries a meaning somewhat different from criminal law, there it connotes removal or retention of a child in breach of another's rights of custody

Phrase 'rights of custody' may have varying meanings

As 101 countries are party to Hague Convention one should prefer the definition given in Art. 5 of the Hague Convention, which says that such rights includes rights relating to care of the person of child and in particular the right to determine child's place of residence.

Petitioners (accused persons) had adopted the complainant's minor daughter, however the complainant alleged that the minor had been abducted by the petitioners

Present case involved a dispute of custody of minor which had been given the colour of criminal proceedings with the intention to pressurize the petitioner party

Allegation of abduction of minor with bad intentions by her adopted parents/close relatives was hard to believe

Minor was very much close and attached with her adoptive parents; 9 case of quashment of FIR had been made out in circumstances

High Court directed that the proceedings in respect of FIR under Ss. 364-A & 506, P.P.C. should be quashed, and that the petitioners and respondents were at liberty to approach the concerned forum regarding the custody of minor

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Complainant had not charged accused for abduction of his daughter in his initial report, recorded in the shape of daily diary after a delay of 2 days

Complainant, later on, in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., charged accused along with his brother and mother for abduction of his daughter

Complainant had not furnished the source of his satisfaction qua involvement of accused in abduction of his daughter, nor the abductee had been recovered from the custody of accused

No evidence had been collected by the Investigating Agency to show any link or connection of accused with the mobile number, from which the complainant allegedly, received a phone call and heard the cry of his daughter

Question as to whether the alleged abductee left the house of her father at her own accord or otherwise, was yet to be answered by the prosecution during trial, after recording evidence, which made the case of accused arguable for the purpose of bail

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

Complainant despite having been informed by the witnesses about the abduction of his two daughters by the accused, had kept on searching them without informing the police for twenty one days

Said inordinate delay of 21 days in lodging the F.I.R. had cast serious doubts about the veracity of the complainant

Both the alleged abductees had completely contradicted each other in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.

One abductee had stated that the accused had not abducted her or her sister and that she had contracted Nikah with a person with her free-will

Other abductee had levelled allegation of abduction and zina against the accused

Both these statements when juxtaposed had, prima facie, made the case against the accused doubtful requiring further inquiry into the matter

Benefit of doubt, howsoever slight, had to be given to accused even at bail stage

Nothing was to be recovered from the accused and their further detention behind the bars would not be useful for the prosecution

Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

Dead body was found on the street in a drum and post-mortem was conducted about 5-1/2 months prior to the arrest of accused

Prior to arrest of accused no one had asked any question to accused about deceased son of complainant

Cause of death was unknown

During the entire period of detention, accused had sought adjournment only four times and more than three years had passed, but the trial had not concluded

Delay in trial was not solely attributed to accused

Accused was neither previously convicted offender for the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or was hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism, punishable with death

Case of accused was fully covered under the amended S.497, Cr.P.C. and he was entitled to bail on that ground alone

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Alleged abductee in her affidavit had stated that she being aged about 21 years was well and sufficiently in a position to think for her future betterment without any coercion, interruption of any kind; that she wanted to marry with accused, who had serious love and affection for her and that he was ready to accept her; that she had decided to marry with him on her choice by exercising her right of free-will

Registered Nikah Nama was executed between accused and alleged abductee

According to said Nikah Nama age of alleged abductee was 21 years and said Nikah Nama was witnessed

Dower' amount Rs.50,000 was also written therein

Alleged abductee also appeared in the court and had not supported the prosecution case and had sought quashing of F.I.R. lodged by her father against accused

Alleged abductee being sui juris, having lawfully married each other, offence as alleged in F.I.R. was not made out

Conviction of accused, in circumstances, was not possible and continuance of the investigation against accused would simpliciter amount to unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of law

Application for quashing F.I.R. was allowed and F.I.R. registered against accused under S.365, P.P.C., was quashed, in circumstances.

Affidavit of alleged abductee annexed with bail application, had clearly shown that alleged abductee had entered into Nikah with accused in consonance with the right guaranteed under the Islamic Law

Matter, requiring consideration, pertained to the allegations, which were levelled against accused, were ulterior motives, coupled with the loss, sustained to his honour, dignity and prestige

Question of mala fides was borne out from the record; and sufficient material was available to come to the conclusion that the report had been lodged to victimize and harass accused

In case of refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to accused, he would suffer humiliation, his dignity would be lowered in the general public

Superior courts could entertain pre-arrest bail and grant relief to accused in appropriate cases, where accused established that he was prevented from approaching the lower court concerned

Even otherwise, when it appeared that accused had not committed the offence of which he was being accused, bail should not be refused or withheld, merely on technical grounds

Accused was admitted on pre-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Occurrence pertained to the year 2007 and accused was granted bail by the Trial Court when abductee was not recovered and no cogent evidence about his involvement in the crime was available

Abductee upon her recovery had charged accused along with cot-accused for the commission of offence in a statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate

Fact that challan had not been submitted before the court, was on account of mala fide on the part of local Police on one hand; and collusion with accused on the other

Offence for which accused was charged, fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Tentative assessment of material available on record reflected that reasonable grounds existed to believe that case of accused was not that of further inquiry

Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Counsel for the complainant had stated that accused was committing zina with allegedly abducted woman because he had effected Nikah with said woman who was already given in nikah to somebody else

Complainant in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. had stated about engagement of his daughter, alleged abductee, with someone and he did not mention that any nikah was performed

First alleged nikah of alleged abductee with someone was not in fact nikah, but was engagement; and there was difference between `Nikah' and 'engagement'-Engagement was a contract, but not final

Alleged abductee at the time of occurrence being more than 18 years of age was sui juris and could enter into a valid nikah on her own free will

If presumed that second nikah of accused with alleged abductee was disputed, then proper forum would be Family Court to decide the issue because criminal court was not competent to take jurisdiction in the case

Father of alleged abductee and her first alleged husband had not filed any suit for jactitation of marriage, which had created doubts

Alleged abductee appeared in the Trial Court and recorded her statement that she entered into nikah with accused on her own free will and that she was never abducted by him

Accused, in circumstances, could not be connected with the offence for which he was charged, unless some facts were proved at the trial stage against him

Case against accused having become of further inquiry, he was entitled to bail on merits

Abscondence of accused had become irrelevant at bail stage.

After recovery of alleged abductee he was examined by the Police under S.161, Cr.P.C., but record was silent as to whether his statement was recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate or not

Case being that of abduction, statement of alleged abductee before the Magistrate was necessary

Failure on the part of prosecution to record said statement, would favour accused's plea for bail

At the initial stage, accused was named on the basis of suspicion

Except statement of abductee, that too under S.161, Cr.P.C., no other ocular evidence was available to connect accused with the abduction of the alleged abductee

Unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. was not explained in the case

Two co-accused in the case had been released on bail and bail cancellation application moved by the complainant was rejected

Case of accused was at par with said co-accused who were on bail

Principle of consistency demanded that bail be granted to accused

Bail was granted.

Alleged abductee had disclosed the names of accused persons in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., who had participated in the alleged occurrence, but her mother, in her report, which she lodged after the delay of 10-1/2 hours did not mention said names

Record had shown that brother of alleged abductee was present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence, but he neither resisted the abduction of her sister nor immediately reported the matter to Police

Alleged abductee had not charged accused for commission of zina with her

Previous enmity existed between the parties

Case being of further inquiry, accused were legally entitled for their enlargement on bail

Requirements of cancellation of bail had not been satisfied by the complainant and was yet to be proved by the complainant that allegations levelled against accused were based on truth

Nothing was on record which could be considered as a valid and genuine ground for cancellation of the bail

No proof had been furnished so. as to give legal cover to the stance of the complainant about extending threats to her or tampering with the evidence

No record pertaining to previous involvement of accused in similar offence had been produced or alleged in the petition

Grounds for grant of bail and its cancellation, were quite different and distinct in nature

Complainant had failed to substantiate her request by means of any material on record

Impugned order was not perverse on the face of it and it had not been passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail; or was not found patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect or resulting in miscarriage of justice

In absence of any merit in petition for cancellation of bail, same was dismissed, in circumstances.

As many as 13 persons had been implicated as accused in the F.I.R., whereas alleged abductee had implicated only five persons

Even otherwise, no allegations against any individual had been made out

Allegations against accused persons were general in nature

Abductee had not been recovered from the possession of accused persons and there was no allegation of zina against accused persons

Variance existed in the story of prosecution in the F.I.R. and so was in the statement made by the abductee under S.164, Cr.P.C,

Benefit of such variance and delay in lodging of F.I.R. was to be extended to accused persons

Case of prosecution, in circumstances, had become doubtful and required further inquiry in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P. C.

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Petitioner had prayed that police officials be restrained from causing harassment to the petitioners in any manner and that they be directed to provide protection to the petitioners as guaranteed under the Constitution

Petitioners who claimed to be of the age of majority and sui juris, had deposed that they had married with her free will and that girl was never abducted

Girl stated that she did not wish to go back to her parents and relatives as they would beat her and maltreat her and her husband

Evidence on record had established that petitioner (girl) was of full age and capable of possessing civil and social rights being sui juris

Girl was of the age of majority at the time of her nikah

Allegation of counsel for the parents/ relatives that girl was under the influence of male petitioner or that she had been abducted, or that her marriage was not at her will, was of no significance in view of statement of the girl that she wished to live rest of her life with male petitioner as her wife.

Pending criminal case filed by complainant/alleged abductee, accused filed cross-case against alleged abductee and her father

Said cross-case having been proved to be false one, was disposed of as "B" class

Proceedings in said cross-case in which attempt was made to win over complainant and frustrate justice, were quashed and F.I.R. in that case was also quashed

Application requesting transfer of case filed by alleged abductee, seemed to be backed not only by mere apprehension for getting no justice in the matter from the Presiding Officer, but was also backed by substantial reasonings

Proceedings pertaining to the case of the complainant, were withdrawn from the court in which same were pending and were transferred to another court, with direction that transferee court would proceed with the case on day to day basis and Investigating Officer was bound down to produce all witnesses before the court on each date.

Version of the wife of the abductee was a strong piece of evidence in whose presence the abductee was taken away by the accused and on having a telephonic contact with her husband his response indicated that he was in a difficult situation and was seeking the help of someone

Such was not an ordinary case of last-seen evidence, as a specific assertion had been made that the accused was solely responsible for taking away the abductee and after that time till today his whereabouts were not known

Conduct of the accused by remaining fugitive from law had further supported the prosecution story, which was relevant and could be taken into consideration at bail stage

Under S.497, Cr.P.C. an accused could not be granted bail when there existed reasonable grounds to believe that he was guilty of the offence charged with

Since reasonable grounds existed for believing that the accused in the present case was guilty of the offence, he was not entitled to grant of bail

Bail granted to accused by High Court was consequently cancelled by converting the petition for leave to appeal into appeal and allowing the same.

Complainant/ mother of alleged abductee appeared in the Court along with her counsel and stated that alleged abductee had married without her permission and that if male accused was to provide a lady member of his family for marriage to the complainant's daughter she would compromise the matter and withdraw the complaint

Fact that alleged abductee appeared in the Court and denied her alleged abduction, there remained no case

Alleged abductee had married of her own free will which fact was not stated in the application, but also in the affidavit submitted in the Court

F.I. R. had clearly been lodged to harass accused persons and to settle the scores

High Court invoking its inherent powers, quashed the F.I.R., in circum­stances.

Delay of ten hours in lodging the report to the Police had not been plausibly explained by the complainant, which had brought the case of accused within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail

For cancellation of bail, strong and exceptional grounds were required to be proved by the complainant

Complainant could not prove that alleged abductee was already married, however, even if alleged Nikah was proved (which was not proved), even then there could be a question of its validity, because on the day of occurrence, the age of the abductee was mentioned to be 12/13 years

Alleged abductee, in circumstances, was minor at that time and she had the right to repudiate the earlier Nikah performed during her minority-Complainant had failed to prove strong and exceptional circumstances required for cancellation of bail granted to accused

No material was available on record to show that either accused had misused the concession of bail or had tampered with the investigation of the case.

Alleged abductee had left the house of her parents of her own consent, but it was yet to be seen at trial, when complete evidence would come on record, that whether there was no other Nikahnama in the field at the time of occurrence including the other Islamic requirements

Person could approach High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. when other remedy was not available

In the present case, F. I. R. had been registered and the investigation was also completed

Grounds agitated by the counsel for the petitioner were such which could be considered by the Trial Court during or before trial

If the plea of the petitioner was considered, it could open a Pandora box and every accused against whom F.I.R. was registered would take shelter of S.561-A, Cr.P.C., and role of the Trial Court would become redundant and consequently High Court would replace the Trial Court

Petitioner had opportunity during trial to file an application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for acquittal if evidence against him was not available

Allegations were there against the petitioner and he must face it and defend it before relevant forum

Petition for quashment was dismissed.

Contention of counsel for the petitioner was that he had contracted marriage with alleged abductee and that challan had been submitted in the competent court of law

Petitioners, in circumstances should have moved the Trial Court for their acquittal under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court was directed by High Court that if any petition in that respect was moved, same would be disposed of within specified period in accordance with law.

Accused was not named in the F.I.R. and the case was registered against him and his co-accused after a delay of seven days, which made the story of prosecution highly doubtful

Alleged abductee was handed over to her father through Panchayat, who had sworn an affidavit regarding the compromise and the innocence of accused

Alleged abductee who was produced before the Magistrate, had not alleged any allegation of abduction or Zina against the accused

Abductee was not recovered from the possession of accused

Prima facie, the applicability of Ss.365-B/376(ii), P.P.C. had become doubtful to the extent of accused

Accused had been declared innocent by the Investigating Officer and his name was placed in column No.2 of the challan

Though the ipse dixit of Police was not binding upon the courts, but same being adverse to the prosecution version, itself made the case one of further inquiry

No legal and moral compulsion was there to keep an accused in jail, Merely because case of accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and he had been alleged to have committed the offence, unless reasonable ground in that regard appeared to exist

Law should not be stretched in favour of prosecution; and if any benefit of doubt would arise, it must go to accused

Question of Zina or abduction was not proved during investigation

Investigation of the case had been completed, the person of accused was no more required by the Police

Accused was behind the bars since 2-6-2009

Further detention of accused in the jail would serve no useful purpose of law

Was yet to be determined during course of trial, if the alleged offence had been committed by accused or not

Prima facie, the facts and circumstance of the case clearly made out a case one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Statement of alleged abductee that she was not abducted by accused or his brother, had made the case of accused that of further inquiry

Co-accused having been allowed bail, accused was also entitled to release on bail on the principle of consistency

Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances.

Once the Trial Court had exercised the discretion of granting bail to accused, for withdrawal of the concession, special circumstances were required

Counsel for the petitioner/complainant had badly failed to point out any instance of misuse of the concession/the relief of bail by accused

Petition for cancellation of bail did not show that accused had misused the bail nor any affidavit of any independent witness about the misuse of the said concession by accused was attached therewith

Considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail were entirely different

In absence of any ground to interfere in the bail granting order passed by the Trial Court, petition for cancellation of bail, was dismissed.

Out of said wedlock a son was born who expired after three months and alleged abductee was stated to be pregnant and likely to give birth to another child

No useful purpose would be served while keeping accused behind the bars when his case was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. calling further inquiry

Case had been registered against accused on account of ulterior motive and mala fide on the part of complainant with the connivance of the local Police

Alleged abductee was residing with accused and both were enjoying peaceful matrimonial life

Abductee had married the accused against the wishes of her family

False case had been registered against accused

Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Offences which were not categorized as `bailable offences' would continue to remain "non-bailable" even if those stood outside the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. with the only concession to the persons accused of such-like offences that the courts of law Were not prohibited from releasing them on bail unlike prohibitory clause, but accused of such-like offences could not claim bail as of right

In the present case, missing of a young son was reported by the father implicating accused and others; it did not appeal to reason as to why a father would implicate accused falsely by letting off the real culprits

Accused was named in the F.I.R. and sufficient incriminating evidence was available against him in the shape of statement of witnesses supporting the complainant

Co-accused were absconding

Charge against accused had been framed and the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence

Accused being not entitled to the concession of bail, his bail application was dismissed.

Accused persons pointing out the place from where deceased was allegedly abducted and the place from where his dead body was secured, carried no evidentiary value as both said places had already been inspected by the police and no fact was discovered in consequence of the information given by them

Recovery of blood-stained stones, after two mouths from the same place from where the dead body was secured, also required further inquiry

Counsel for accused persons had also pointed out that co-accused on the basis of whose statement accused persons were arrested, had been maltreated by police, and the complainant had himself stated in his examination-in-chief, that co-accused had implicated theist because the Investigating Officer had maltreated him, it could not be said, in circumstances, that reasonable grounds were available to believe accused persons guilty of the offence and the matter required further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused were released on bail, in circumstances.

Complainant present in the Court had stated that he had no objection, if bail granted to accused was confirmed as main culprits were behind the bars and facing trial

In such cases only circumstantial evidence could be collected

Main accused who was arrested had confessed the murder of deceased and dead body was also recovered on his pointation from his house

Nothing was on record to show that accused also resided in the said house

Case for extension of benefit of bail to accused having been made out, bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.

Where the accused had neither used force nor ordered its use and undisputedly no deceitful means were used, element of "abduction" was not proved.

Restraint of victim becomes "abduction" when it is done with intent to prevent liberation of victim.

Witnesses most natural-House of father of abductee at distance of one hundred yards-Nothing on record suggesting any motive or animosity of witnesses against accused

Statements of witnesses corroborated by statement of abductee

Only evidence about purpose of abduction being extra-judicial confession

Witnesses contradicting each other on extra-judicial confession

Guilt of abduction of minor girl, held, had been brought home to- accused but his intention of subjecting abductee to sexual lust could not be established beyond reasonable doubt

Accused, therefore, was punishable under S.363, P.P.C. and not under S.364-A, P.P.C. in circumstances.

Abduction-Federal Shariat Court rendering a finding of not guilty on extension of benefit of doubt to accused mainly on consideration that ocular testimony was tainted due to enmity involving previous cases of murder and a woman's abduction as also its contradiction by medical evidence-Judgment proceeded on sound principles of administration of criminal justice and was unexceptionable

Leave to appeal refused.

Ss. 366 & 376-Abduction-Rape-Evidence-No evidence that abductee had been taken away by deceitful means-Consent or enticement not relevant if abductee girl under sixteen years of age-No proper material produced by prosecution to sustain finding that abductee was lass than sixteen at relevant time-Age, crucial to determination of criminality of act, not proved by unshakable and conclusive evidence Prosecution failing to discharge onus-Held, case of prosecution against accused not free from doubt and as such their conviction not sustainable in law-Conviction and sentences of accused set aside.

Leave to appeal refused.

Ss. 302, 366 & 376 read with S. 34-Abduction-Rape-Murder-Material prosecution witnesses won over during trial but accused convicted on dying declaration of deceased-Contention that dying declaration not having been recorded by a Magistrate or some responsible officer, although available and doctor not having said in so many words that dying statement was recorded in his presence or that he signed it, same was not reliable so as to be acted upon-Deceased woman, victim of rape, having been brought to Civil Hospital at 11 a.m., doctor due to her condition being very critical at once writing to local police station, police officer arriving, recording her statement by 11-20 a.m. and sending statement by 11-30 a.m. to police Station concerned for registration of case-Five documents including dying statement on record bearing signatures of Doctor witness and all signatures in same ink-Mere omission on part of Public Prosecutor or Inquiry

Ss. 302/109 & 364-Abduction followed by murder-Alternative charges under Ss. 302/109 & 364 possible-Applicability of S. 302/109 doubtful-Safer course is to charge and convict under S. 364-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 236.

Ss. 363 & 368 - Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 100 & 552-Abduction-Investigation Officer after recovering abducted girl cannot detain her against her will in supurdari of person of his own choice, especially in case of legally wedded woman.