farhan crime 2.pdf

8/14/2019 farhan crime 2.pdf

1/13

482 CriminalLaw:CasesandMaterialsOffences A ct, 1956 i t is an offence for 'a pe rson ' to*-- ,"wrnaa or a m an . Pu nis hm en t may extend to 10 years of m x \ycases under s 14 ad IVSimilar provisionshavebeen retained ^A? *** n2.?Act,2 0 0 3 . cd ,n , hc Sexual Of t^

Thefience of indecent assault includes both a battery (atouchiassault,^ t h o u t touching. In case ofbatteiypfoof of the victim'sJ ? i ? " * *circu m stanc es of ind ecen cy is no t required, whereas in Case of n w T * ^ *,victim m ust be aw are of the assault and of the circumstances oftheK ^ r T * * *Assault or ba ttery need no t be indecent in itself provided it is acircumstancesof indecency. For instance, inBeat vKelley,'1 where afr f ln ' e d ^yean had declined the accused's invitation to touch his penis, theaccused f Uboys arms and dragged him towards himself, the accused was held onii V *indecent assault. g *an

Indecent Assaul t under Indian Penal CodeI r i * high time that a new section be added in the Indian Penal Codeprovidp u n is hm en t for ' indec ent assault ' either comm itted by a man or a womanprovided under Sexual Offences Act, 2003 in England. Such a provision isnecessanbecause under Indian law persons, who are found guiltyof'indecent assault',are norcovered under any one of the existing provisions in the Code and go scot-free.Thelaw should cover both a man and a woman alike as in case of English law, andpunishment should be more stringent than in case of ordinaryassault.The proposedsection should read as stated below:

Indecent Assault.Whoever commits indecent assault against a woman or a manshall be liable to punishment with imprisonment of either descriptionforatenswhichmay extend to*fiveyears, or with fine, or with both .KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTIONK id n ap p in g an d ab d u c t io n arc1 punishable under ss 3 5 9 - 3 6 9 ^ . T h c ofIncluding sucfl.offence* iftthe IPC is to extend protection to children of tender agefrom being abducted or seduced for illegal and undesirable purposes and to preserveand protect the r ights of the parents and guardians overthtirwards.3 5 9 . K i d n a p p i n g K i d n a p p i n g is o f tw o k i nd s : ' k idn app ing from India, andk i d n a p p i n g f r o m lawfal g u a r d i a n s h i p .3 6 0 . K i d n a p p i n g f ro m I n d i a . - W h o e v e r co n v ey s W ^ * g l i m i t s of lndia Without t h e consent o f t h a t p e r s o n , < * ? * * rsona u t h o r i s e d t o c o n s e n t o n b e h a l f o f t h a t p e r s o n , is said to k idnap una P =from I n d i a .91 RvCowt. (1987) 1AllER 120(122) (Crown Court ofAppeal).SeeA-i92 (1951)2 All ER763.


2/13

V t^nj*Offt* ReUtlng^l entices any0^1=^" tMWneveT takesm "J" tf a

p i * 1

id to kidnap menn11..vr,fTr. petto| words, 'lawful guardian'inthis section isted with the care or custody of such minor or other:tion does not extend to the act of any person who in~* illegitimate child,Ofw h o in

o n r r o w - ,-^ _ * Include anyF 7 ^ f u i g u a r d s ' in thU ot othe^ = I ^ r h c words. '-;ui | o r ^

. ___"]fhis section does not extend to the actOT any j / -.I M:.I hclievefhimself to be therather of an illegitimate child, or who inWT v hbelieves himself to be entitled to th e lawful c ustod y of su ch ch il d ,w*A*ctiscommitted for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

^naos any person f rom India

J b k " * * ' b v force com pels , or by any dece it fu l m ea n sL . A WU c r i n . - W h ^ by for . P ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

, secrians 363A to 369 otMaCtin' ft u M1m itdoes not amount to 'taking'fr'&^1>22~-Z s&rrc-AfP


3/13

484 Criminal fmm

3 5 ^ *S**"^wboln -* ^ P ' P 4 " ôid*> to Srifctkukm on4 October

MM >L

Js contention ^ ^ ^*5ff ^d**h asnot l w _ f T41 * W

I960Âccepting th e apoSavurt ou t o f the keeputhe fimparagraph of 3

-^ ^îxîsashere i s no t a word Lvr_Jcould bed î z z t&1g^j * s -isnr5uSSran


4/13

I ,c.x, -.-.> --.>;"IM | iiwnmiiiHIa ii ii it n ~i T ^ I TS?

time must he alJMk Mt khquite ckar that w nl physSal- "T)Jc W

i. withB R hy,NoUAs&on \M hUftdtshmctu&, The question is whethce*facwe P_|,}v imaAWAVtofdlwr n ike act of die ptwoact or of the swi> We is *,wlrv\...it'she Mt (browd at to wefce adsufS03 , 0rtv ,M**wft th* lie stadNffa **y with hat* and he fielded to her $uge*oo-*wk iI>J:DAactive part hi the matter, you must acquit him.j n ,hi>-case thereWASnoevidenceof anysolicitationbythe accused at any tunedfilj jhe jure itfumed a verdictetf''not guilty'. Further, there was no suggestionlut the gin was incapable of thinking for herself and making up her ownI Held, no offence under s 563 has been established against the appellant.The conviction is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

f jb>ermixing if *t mtmerfrmm* faqfitl rmsmdy of guardian amommts tokith t}f'Tfifip&tf dismissed- > r M#ftiI. v. r... cmrt (1972)Tfaak&rihdDVsdgam*pSawefGrnjarat'*

The fact that on the day of occurrence the girl voluntarily went to the accused wouldbe no defence to a charge of kidnapping a minor girl with an intention to seduce herto engage ii illicit intercourse, if there is ample material showing allurement.Section 361 uses the expression whoever takes or entices any minor*. The word'takes*no doubt, means physical taking but not necessarily by use of force or fraud.The word 'entice' seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by givingrise to hope or desire in the other. This may work immediately or it may create acontinuous and gradual but imperceprible impression culminating after some timein achieving its ultimate purposes of successful inducement.

The two words read together suggest that if the minor leaves her parental home,completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from theguilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence ofkidnapping(Vknutmgmtscase).But, if die guilty party has laid a foundation by inducement, allurement or threat,

etc,and ifthiscan be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with herin leaving her guardian's custody or keeping and going to the guilty party, thenprima facie it would be difficult for him to plead innocence on the ground that theminor had voluntarily come to him. If the accused had at an earlier stage solicited orinduced her in any manner to leave her fetther's protection by conveying ori n d j c a t , n a " T ? r m g suBS**ion that he would give her shelter, then the merecircumstances that his act w nn t. , i a > ., 8 , , ." n o t tne immediate cause of her leaving her parental


5/13

486

m

tAPp*aiaooni v , 1 9 J u n e 1 9 9 8 , * M '

Wf ol au th orhW ^ Evicted ofr i - U nV?

O n appeal r f ^ o f t f *s2fnrM k ' contended thath , u ^ n

" = 7 - J - *


6/13

V V( i


7/13


8/13

*. 489Chapiter8OffencesRelating to Hum an Body _K I nf the timely intervention ofthe Suprem e C ourt that PreJeJ .

^ B ^ t ^ c i n g a b l a t e immunity to V eerappan * * * - S ^ j j j i d .^ j K T ^ a m l willgo along way inr e w L u i * the a u& o tttw . conce' ^ g ^ ^ d c r r M p a s o f t b e c u l p r i o .

1 L / L Kidnapping for Ransom^UmHdering ' ^ J J ^ J ^ Z w f -S^lj^for ransom, legislature bat in itswisdom provided for *>en seixed_Ed at ransom and itscomm unication established-currency note

Of P^yu^-Supreme CourP-2008Vinod vState ofHaryand

T ? , ine of Amit K u m a r , a g ed 9 years on 2 9 - 5 - 1 9Jb tork d 0 a P P S S A I P C a n d s e n te n c e d toim pr i so nm en t for l it e .

J ^ S L l a n M o h a n fata ofA . b o y that ta; s o n ^ w h r

Slxralf^ ht^-ra |the piacccommunicated. chi\d MadanM

R - n e Scared of the constant threat of murder or . o { fo |J S e u S T - lakh and arranged dr., nores rn d > . * rf W kfoH.0/- and Rs 50/- - f r t , I a n Theb ^ containing currencynotStialed as " M M " by . ^ ^ h had taken away thebagU d e d over to the " ' ^ ^ f ^ w h i c h he ha d driven away hunseZ X S Z S X K ^ a c k A n m ^ H I and handedhtmMadan M o h a n . 10 Virender

Aftera hectic search finale % $ H P 9 1 * *declaredaproclaimed offend J d . They were ,Madan Mohan was found from t h e ^ ^ 1 P G and found gtfor the offence of ^ P P , m ^ " ^was confirmed by the High Co u r t .

9 yearsofclass3rd standard sonofMa*n n o o n tune when thePaTpat (Hariyana, was> , 1 j ^ 10 yatds away ****&*playwith his friendsoutsidetthe ' n ^ s e a r c h andteported the matterWSimm Madan Mohan hts father made

^ T f . ^ b efoundoat Vishav Pal, P***" K - * ^ed a Vinod,V i t a . VidyaSagar, ^ j L ^

rj jf nj rj O (jQ


9/13

\ \^ VvI ' Ku Q ^ * " -^Offences Relating toH umanBody

r V v ***** ***"" f dm ,y tawendon of the Supreme Co urt thatpreW tt \m* fie"18r a n t j }}tc "nmunity to Veeppn and hi assocwtfi. It * *' * A. hS SW j " d g , n e n t * d J * ? " 8 longway in restraining the minorities to concede/*/ ^ V l ' ' t h e illegaldemandsot the culprits.*0.% V v f c * i * -*51*4 K*dn aPP ilfi> r J* ****** Considering alarming rise in kidnappingIf childrenfor ransom, legislature has in its wisdom providedfor stringentsentence-L,ce Dem and at ransom and its comm unication established-currency notesseized-

cllSed LiableSupreme Court2008Vinod v StateofHaryana\ MP c r D rArijitPasayat,J :Ten persons including one Virendar (a proclaimed offender) were convicted foryjnapping of Amit Kumar, aged 9 years on 29-5-1996 for ransom punishableV\i "n d c r s 3 6 4 A I P C 3nd s e n t e n c e d t o imprisonment for life.Three days after the incident or*. 2-6-1996 a telephone message from Saharnpurwas sen t to-Madan Mohan father of the boy that his son Amit Kumar was well butnis abductor were dem and ing a ransom am oun t of Rs 10,00,000/- fai ling w hichrJjey were threatening to kill Anil Kumar; and that if the matter is reported to the

police his son would be killed. The manner in which the money was to be paid andthe place where and to whom it was to be delivered in exchange of the boy wasmm communicated.Being scared of the constant threat of murder of the child Madan Mohanarranged for ten lakh an d arrang ed the notes in the den om inat ion s of R s 50 0m |Rs 100 /- an d R s 50 /- respectively and the f irst and last notes of th e bu nd les wereini ti al ed as "M M " by Ma da n M oh an . T he bag con ta in ing cu rrency no te s was

handed over to the middle man-Yashpal who had taken away the bag in thecar b e a ri n g R e g i s t ra t i o n n o H R - 0 6 B - 2 4 4 which he h ad drive n away himself. N e x tday on 4-6-1996 Y a sh p a l b r o u g h t b a c k A m i t k u m a r a n d h a n d e d htm over toM a d a n M o h a n .

After a hectic search finally all the nine accused 10 (except on e V iren der w ho wasdec la red a pr oc la im ed offender) were rou nd ed u p , currency notes w i th the in i tia l ofM adan M o h a n was fou nd f rom the possess ion o f the accused . T he y were p rose cu tedfor the offence of kidnap ping for ransom under s 364A IPC and found guilty whichwas confirmed by the H igh Court.

S

9 AIR 2008 SC 1142, (2008) 2SCC246,Dr Arijit Pasayat and SSathasivamjj Amit K umar, aged9 years of class 3rd standard son of Madan Mohan resident of Old Housing Board colonyPanipat (Hariyana) was kidnap ped on 2 9.5.1996 around noon time when the boy had gone t


10/13

Vinodv c, w h , ' e endorsing U " ^ " ^ J A ? ?fcL

"* * ' o p i o i d 2 0 l 3> - J W ow , P o o o k Z , * ^ " .

/ i w . u s i n g th r c a t S ) o rA w a ^ - u w *force,oranyo t h c r fotm ofc , ^ ^

Jhirdfy.-~by abduatea, orfR2012 SC308.(2012)1 SCC 406.ffR 2004 SC 4865, (2004)8SCC 95.AIR 2008SC 1142,(2008) 2 SCC 246.


11/13

I

491

j j ^ r t t f e * * * * * *

, h * *' ' '. .

Documents

farhan crime 2.pdf