Kidnapping a Hineous Crime

Sejal Makkad | Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh | 6th June 2020

Vinod Kumar V State Of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1401 0f 2008)

Facts: 

In this case, Vinod Kumar was accused and the crime committed was mainly od kidnapping. The accused was housekeeper of Jagbir Singh, father of the child who was kidnapped. The child was of 3 years old. Based on some of the assumptions and conditions, Jagbir Singh filed a FIR against Vinod stating that he was the one who kidnapped his son. The accused left a letter which was addressed to Jagbir Singh. The letter also contained a ransom of Rs. 1 lakh

Issue: 

Whether Vinod was accused of kidnapping Jagbir Singh’s son?

Provisions: 

Section 363, 109, 364 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Judgement: 

The lower court acquitted the accused and gave the reasoning that the three were no evidences found to convict the accused. The witnesses which gave their statements were found to be pressurised.
The case was reversed in the High Court. During the proceedings, the court found that the evidences along with the corroboration with the statement of the witnesses, proved the guilt of Vinod.
Along with this, Vinod also confessed that the letter was written by him and he only asked for the ransom. Hence, Vinod was convicted.

Analysis: 

The statements of the accused and also the evidence plays a vital role. The appeals also are a vital part b because sometimes it may happen that there might be fault in the judgement of the lower court. For the purpose of rectifying the same, there is always an option of appeal provided to the parties for appeal so that they do not feel that justice has not been served to them. Therefore, Indian judiciary keeps a check on it and in many instances the decision of the lower courts is reversed by the higher courts.