VIKRAM @ PINKI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petitions the Petitioners Vikram @ Pinki, Manoj Bhandari, Shamsher Singh @ Bittoo and Rishi Om Sharma challenge the order dated 5th April, 2011 directing and framing charge under Section 120-B read with Section 364-A IPC against the Petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the case of the prosecution against the Petitioners is based on intercepted conversation. As per the intercepted conversations there is no evidence that the abduction was being committed or that the alleged abduction was for the purpose of demanding ransom. Further, no prior permission for interception was taken contrary to the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act and Rules. Apart from the conversation there is no evidence against the Petitioners. The essential ingredients of Section 364-A i.e. demand of ransom have not been alleged. Even the statements of the persons allegedly conspired to be kidnapped does not implicate the Petitioners. On the facts at best planning was going on and no offence was committed. No overt act is alleged in the charge-sheet. Relying upon State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr., 2000 ACJ 550; K. Hasim Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 AIR(SC) 128 and Netra Pal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2001 4 Crimes 387 it is contended that to fasten a liability of criminal conspiracy, mere intention is not sufficient and an overt act is also required to be attributed.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand contends that the conversations between the Petitioners and co-accused were intercepted on 2nd, 3rd and 4th July, 2008. As per the intercepted conversation it is clear that the Petitioners along with the co-accused had entered into a conspiracy to kidnap Amarnath Bajaj and Subhash Bajaj, the two brothers and were following them. Not only the conspiracy, the Petitioners had attempted the same as well. The Petitioners also stated the amount of money to be received from the persons kidnapped. For an offence of conspiracy only the meeting of minds has to be proved whereas in the present case there are definite overt acts done by the Petitioners and the co-accused as per the intercepted conversation. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitions be dismissed.