# Akeela @ Sanno Anneta & Anr. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 804
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1850 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akeela-sanno-anneta-anr-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46812
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-Section
364-Amodification of sentence-factum of asking
ransom from a particular phone number
has not been proved-no cogent evidence
on the fact that the accused under the
guise of taking the child around had
kidnapped
her
and
had
demanded
ransom-matter would fall within section
365 and not within 364-A of IPC-as the
accused are in jail for more than ten
years-the
accused
is
entitled
to
be
released.(Para 1 to 22)

The appeal is partly allowed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Registrar General to place the matter
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice that
periodical listing of matters be taken up in
the High Court so that those who are in jail
for more than 10 or 14 years, where the
appeals are pending, may at least get their
appeal heard which are mainly jail appeals.

52. Site Plan with Index A copy of
this judgment be sent to the Law Secretary,
State of U.P. who shall impress upon the
District Magistrates of all the districts in
the State of U.P. to reevaluate the cases for
remission after 14 years of incarceration as
per mandate of Sections 432 and 433 of
Cr.P.C. even if appeals are pending in the
High Court.
----------
(2021)02ILR A804
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER , J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1850 of 2014

Akeela @ Sanno Anneta & Anr.
 ....Appellants(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Deepak K. Jaiswal, Mary Puncha (Sheeb
Jose), Sri Mohd. Kalim

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
 A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-Section
364-Amodification of sentence-factum of asking
ransom from a particular phone number
has not been proved-no cogent evidence
on the fact that the accused under the
guise of taking the child around had
kidnapped
her
and
had
demanded
ransom-matter would fall within section
365 and not within 364-A of IPC-as the
accused are in jail for more than ten
years-the
accused
is
entitled
to
be
released.(Para 1 to 22)

The appeal is partly allowed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Guddo @ Nitin Singh Vs St. of U.P.,(2020)
Cri.L.J. 3792

2. Kallu @ Gurdayal Vs St. of U.P.,( 2020) CRI.
L.J. 1547

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J. &
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. Present appeal has been preferred
against the Judgment and order dated
4.4.2014 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Room No. 16, Kanpur
Nagar in S.T. No. 177 of 2010, State Vs.
Akeela @ Sanno @ Aneeta & another,
arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2009
under Section 364A I.P.C. Police Station
Bekanganj, District Kanpur Nagar.

2. The facts as culled out from the
prosecution story are that on 20.10.2009,
the first informant Misbahul Islam gave a
written report at Police Station Bekanganj,
District Kanpur Nagar alleging that on
19.10.2009 at about 6 p.m., his housemaid,
namely, Sanno @ Akeela took his niece
Shifa aged about one and half year around
the house and did not return. It is further
alleged that she could not traced out even
after lot of efforts.

3. On the basis of written report, a
case was registered as Case Crime No. 212
2 All. Akeela @ Sanno Anneta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
805
of 2009 under Section 364 I.P.C. against
the accused-appellant Akeela @ Sanno on
the very same day at 10.00 p.m. S.I. Ram
Charan Gihar took up the investigation of
the matter. The Investigating Officer
prepared nakal chik, nakal rapat and also
recorded the statement of scribe of the First
Information Report. On the pointing out of
first informant, he also prepared the site
plan of the place of occurrence and started
tracing out the kidnapped girl.

4. On 22.10.2013, wife of the first
informant Smt. Tahsin Fatima presented a
written report with an intent that on
20.10.2009
on
her
mobile
phone
no.9450436353, a call was made from
mobile phone no.9753775687 and the
person who rang her told that kidnapped
girl was in his custody and for giving her
back alive, ransom amounting to Rs.5 lakhs
was asked for. The said application was
entered in the G.D. and Section 364 was
converted into Section 364-A I.P.C. and
investigation was taken up by S.O. S.K.
Singh.

5. On receiving information from
some informant on 22.10.2013, when
Investigating Officer along with police
party
proceeded
on
foot
towards
Yatimkhana crossroads and were 50 paces
away from the crossroads, the informant
pointing out towards a person standing near
the crossroads told that he was the person
who was husband of Akeela @ Sanno. The
police, at the spur of moment, nabbed that
person on the Yatimkhana crossroads itself,
who told that his name was Vijay Sharma
(accused-appellant no.2) and admitted that
on his instigation, his wife Sanno had
kidnapped the girl for ransom of Rs. 5
lakhs and his wife was sitting in China Park
behind Community Centre hiding herself.
The Investigating Officer nabbed her from
the said place from whose custody the
kidnapped girl was recovered. He prepared
the recovery fard of the girl on the said
place and took signatures of public
witnesses as well as the police personnel
present thereon. He also took signatures of
the accused person on the copy of the fard.
After
investigation,
charge-sheet
was
submitted before the court.

6. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar taking cognizance of the
offence, committed the matter to Sessions
Court for trial. The Trial Court charged the
accused-appellants under Section 364A
I.P.C. who denied the charges and claimed
trial.

7. To bring home the charges, the
prosecution examined as many as eight
witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Misbahul Islam
(first informant and uncle of the kidnapped
girl); P.W.2 Mohd. Sibtain (father of the
informant);
P.W.3
Sharbat
Mufiz
(independent
witness
of
recovery
of
kidnapped girl); P.W. 4 Tahseen Fatima
(wife of the informant); P.W. 5 Head
Constable Devendra Kumar ; P.W. 6 SI
Sunil Kumar Singh ; P.W. 7 S.I. Ramcharan
Gihar; and P.W. 8 Rajendra Singh Nagar
(witness of recovery of kidnapped girl).

8. P.W. 1 Misbahul Islam in his
examination-in-chief stated that Sanno @
Akeela and her husband Vijay were known
to him. Sanno used to do maid work at his
home. It was on 19.10.2009 at about 6 p.m.
when Sanno @ Akeela took out his niece
Shifa aged about one and half year out of
the house on the pretext of walking around.
When she did not returne for a long time,
he and his family members started tracing
her out. They searched for them in the
night. On not finding them, he had moved
an application on 20.10.2009 at about 10
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a.m. at Police Station Bekan Ganj. He
along with others was searching Shifa and
Akeela on the very day. At about 12.30 at
day hours, on mobile no.9450436353 of his
wife Tahsin Fatma, a call was made from
mobile no. 9753775687 and it was told that
his child is safe and if she wanted her back,
she had to extend ransom of Rs.5 lakhs and
if it was disclosed to anybody, her child
will be no more. This witness further stated
that on account of threat, he did not told
this to the police and was waiting for his
call as it was said that he will make another
call as to where the money had to be given.
On not being made call for two days, his
wife gave a written information in this
regard at the police station. On 20.10.2009
at about 10.10.30 at night, the police
nabbed Sanno @ Akeela and Vijay near
Yatimkhana crossroads and recovered his
niece Shifa from their custody. At that time,
police had called up his father and brother.
On the very same day, the police had
handed over Shifa to his father and brother.
Accused Sanno @ Akeela and her husband
had kidnapped his niece Shifa aged about
one and half years for getting ransom.

9. P.W.1 in his cross-examination
stated that he had written the written report.
May be that in haste, he could not put date
on
the
written
report.
Mobile
No.
9415051970 was his number. Mobile
No.941512805 belongs to his father Mohd.
Sibtain. Mobile No. 9935959933 belongs to
his younger brother Mistahul Islam who is
the father of the girl. Mobile No. 2542042
belongs to doctor, which was closed at that
time and out of order on that day. He had
written the written report standing on the
road outside the police station. It was
written on 20th at about 10 a.m. in the
morning. Akeela @ Sanno had come for
work in his house about two months ago.
She had come two months ago from the
date of incident. Akeela did not live in his
house. He did not know where Akeela used
to live. Mother of Sanno used to visit his
house earlier to the incident. Her visit was
upto three years ago. Mother of Akeela
used to visit his house upto three years ago
from the date of incident. Mother of Sanno
lived at Colonelganj. He had never visited
her house. Mother of Sanno used to come
to work at the time of marriage etc. Sanno
used to take around the girl outside and
then he stated that she had took her around
for about two to four times. There was a
boy child except that girl, who was aged
about four years old and boy child was
seven years old. She had taken him around
about one time. He did not remember
specifically as to what remuneration he
used to give her but he used to give less
than thousand rupees. Neither he had given
any application on 19.10.2009 nor he
remembered about that. That girl could not
be found. He had seen the girl at home. He
had given statements to the Inspector. He
had got recorded his statements between
dates 20th-22nd. He further stated that it
was false statement that he had lodged false
case due to not giving of salary. Call was
made on the cell phone of his wife. What
was told, should be asked from his wife.
Mobile
number
of
his
wife
was
9450436353 and which number was used at
that time, he did not remember. He had
checked the number but he did not
remember the number at that time. He had
not got made audio CD. Nothing occurred
in his presence. In his presence, police
visited his home, they did paper work but
what they did, he did not know. The girl
was healthy when she was at home. Girl
was weeping.

10. P.W. 2 Mohd. Sibtain stated in his
examination-in-chief that he knew Akeela
@ Sanno. She was housemaid in his house.
2 All. Akeela @ Sanno Anneta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
807
On 19.10.09 in the evening hours, Akeela
took his granddaughter Shikha aged about
one and half years out of the house on the
pretext of play. On not being returned, he
along with others started search for them.
On not being traced out, his son Misbahul
Islam got registered a case of kidnapping
against her at Police Station Bekanganj. On
20.10.2009, his daughter-in-law (bahu) was
asked for ransom of Rs.5 lakhs on making
call on her cell phone. Thereafter, they
were waiting for another call and making
arrangement for demanded ransom. When
no call was made again, his daughter-inlaw Tahsin Fatima having apprehension of
any untoward incident gave a written report
at police station Bekanganj about the call
for demand of ransom. On 22.10.2009 at
night, one police personnel came to call up
him and told that a lady had been nabbed
with one and half year girl to whom he
should recognize. Thereafter, he went to
China Park and saw that his girl was in the
lap of lady police and Akeela was nabbed
by police. He recognized his girl there and
the lady caught hold was Akeela @ Sanno.
This
witness
proved
handing
over
document Ext. Ka-2 and recovery fard Ext.
Ka-3.

11. P.W. 2 in his cross-examination
stated that he knew Akeela from 10-15 days
ago of the incident. He did not know
another accused who is known by Vijay
Sharma. Where Akeela lived, he did not
know. Akeela was engaged for work at 800
rupees per month. He did not go to the
police station for lodging case. Report was
lodged on 20.10.2009. His son had lodged
the report against Akeela for kidnapping.
He had not seen her taking the girl around.
Mother and grandmother of the girl had
seen her taking girl around. Voice asking
for Rs.5 lakhs was of a man. The number
from which call was made on the mobile of
his daughter-in-law was given at the police
station. He came to know about finding out
of the girl on 22.10.2009. One policeman
came and gave the information. The girl
was
found
at
Tikonia
Park
in
Heeramanpurwa. When he reached there,
Parvez, Arlad, Sharbar and policemen were
there. Except the lady and girl, there was
none other else. Husband of that lady was
also there. He did not know the actual time.
Darkness had grown in the revving. This
witness further stated that police had not
recorded his statement. Tahsin Fatma was
his daughter-in-law. His statement was not
recorded thereafter. The girl was one and
half years old and was not able to tell
anything. It was wrong to state that his girl
was not kidnapped and case was wrongly
registered. This was also wrong to state that
he had given false statement. He further
stated that it is wrong to state that he
lodged case against her as her money was
outstanding with them. He further stated
that it is wrong to state that he registered
false case on account of some personal
acrimony.

12. P.W. 3 Sharbat Mufiz is the
independent witness of the recovery of the
girl. This witness proved Exts. Ka-3 and
Ka-2. He stated in the cross-examination
that he knew first informant, who was his
brother-in-law (sala). From his home, Talaq
Mahal was about 10 kms away. Yatimkhana
was nearby Talaq Mahal. Yatimkhana is at
walking distance of 2-3 minutes from Talaq
Mahal. In his knowledge, the incident
relates to 19.10.2009. He did not know
when the case was registered. His wife
came to know about the incident and
thereafter he came to know about the
incident from her. He did not know accused
earlier. On 21-22.10.2009 no phone came
to him about ransom. He was his son-inlaw. Call was made to elder sister-in-law
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(badi bahu). Neither any call was made to
him nor any ransom was asked from him.
He had reached Yatimkhana crossroads at
10.10.30. For what he was going there, he
did not know. He was not going to his inlaws home. This witness further stated that
he was made to stop at the crossroads and
then stated he stopped seeing crowd. He
went to China Park with the police. Eightten policemen were catching hold of one
man. From police, he came to know that it
was a matter of kidnapping. Thereafter, he
went along with the nabbed man and police
to the China Park. This witness stated that
there was darkness under the tree in China
Park. In torch light, he saw that a lady with
girl was sitting there. Policemen got that
lady caught hold by lady home guard. He
did not know that lady. Along with him,
there was 8-10 policemen and Parvez. This
witness stated that it was wrong to state
that as he was son-in-law (damad) of the
informant's family, therefore, he was
making false statement.

13. P.W. 4 Smt. Tahsin Fatma in her
examination-in-chief stated the fact of
taking around the girl by her housemaid
Sanno @ Akeela on 19.10.2019 and not
coming back thereafter. On not being traced
out, her husband Misbahul had lodged a
report at police station Bekanganj. On
20.10.2009 at 12.30 p.m., a call was made
on her mobile number 9450436353 by
mobile no. 9753775687 and ransom of Rs.5
lakhs was demanded. When the call was
not made again, she moved an application
in regard to demand of ransom, which she
proved as Ext. Ka-4. She further stated that
on 22.10.2009 at night hours, police had
nabbed Akeela and recovered Shifa. Her
father-in-law had brought girl from the
police station. In cross-examination, this
witness stated that on 22nd her father-inlaw had brought the girl at 12.00 a.m. From
where he had brought she did not know.
She did not ask her father-in-law as to
wherefrom, he had brought the girl. Call
was made by husband of Sanno on 20th at
12.30 noon. She did not remember the
number from which call was made. In
examination-in-chief, which number she
had got written, was brought by her in
writing and from that number call was
made. She did not know from where her
niece was recovered and from whom she
was recovered. She did not remember
whether she had told the Inspector the
number from which call was made. She
stated that the girl was neither kidnapped or
recovered before her. She further stated it
was wrong to say that false case was
registered
because
of
money
being
outstanding.

14. The prosecution proved written
report F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-1; fard handing
over of kidnapped girl as Ext. Ka-2; fard
recovery of kidnapped girl as Ext. Ka-3;
written report of Tahsin Fatima as Ext. Ka4; Chik F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-5, Copy of G.D.
Entry as Ext. Ka-6; Copy of G.D. Entry
regarding registration of case as Ext. Ka-7;
Charge-sheet as Ext. Ka-8; and site plan of
the place of occurrence as Ext. Ka-9.

15. Learned Trial Judge after hearing
the prosecution as well as defence counsel
and appreciating the evidence, held both
the accused-appellant guilty under Section
364 A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo
life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2500/-
each and in default of payment of fine,
sentenced each of them to undergo two
months additional imprisonment.

16. Heard Ms. Mary Puncha (Sheeb
Jose), learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned counsel
for the State.
2 All. Akeela @ Sanno Anneta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
809

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
contended that in fact the evidence is so
scanty that there was no proof that minor
child was kidnapped. She further stated that
leave apart kidnapping, there is no evidence
that the kidnapping was for ransom.
Conviction of the accused cannot be based
on the sole testimony of the accused
himself who had guided the police to the
place where child was kept. It is further
submitted that husband is a blind person.
The husband and wife were working with
the first informant. It is further submitted
that from the record, it is not found that the
accused had demanded what can be said to
be ransom. The telephone number from
which call was made is also not proved.
The kidnapper were nabbed from China
Park. The learned Trial Judge, according to
the
learned
counsel,
has
based
the
Judgment on the fact that Sanno @ Akeela
@ Aneeta at the instance of Vijay Sharma
under the guise of taking the child around
had kidnapped her and had demanded
ransom. It is submitted that this fact is not
proved by cogent evidence. Hence, placing
reliance on Judgments of this Court in
Guddo @ Nitin Singh Vs. State of U.P.,
2020 CRI.L.J. 3792, and Kallu @
Gurdayal Vs. State of U.P., 2020 CRI. L.
J. 1547, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that conviction and sentence of
the accused appellants may be modified
from Section 364 A to one Section 365
I.P.C..

18. Per contra, learned counsel for the
State submitted that the accused were in
fiduciary capacity and were servants with
the first informant. Ransom has been
demanded, which has been proved and this
Court may not easily interfere with the
Jugement impugned herein as there was
arrest even at the behest of the accused
Vijay Sharma. They were knowing the first
informant and the child. It was submitted
that P.W. 3 has given exact version of entire
fact which is corroborated by statements of
P.W. 7 S.I. Ram Charan.

19. Considering the evidence on
record, we are convinced that the matter
would fall within Section 365 and not
within 364 A of the Indian Penal Code. The
decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in Guddo @ Nitin Singh (supra)
relied on by Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),
learned counsel for the appellants would
apply to the facts of the case. Factum of
asking ransom from a particular phone
number has not been proved. Even if we go
by the admission of the accused, which is a
weak piece of evidence that there was
kidnapping because of the threat given , it
would be offence under Section 365 and
not 364A of the Indian Penal Code.
Sections 365 and 364 A read as under:-

"365. Kidnapping or abducting
with intent secretly and wrongfully to
confine
person.--Whoever
kidnaps
or
abducts any person with intent to cause
that person to be secretly and wrongfully
confined,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

"364A. Kidnapping for ransom,
etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any
person or keeps a person in detention after
such
kidnapping
or
abduction
and
threatens to cause death or hurt to such
person, or by his conduct gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension that such person
may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt
or death to such person in order to compel
the Government or 2[any foreign State or
international
inter-governmental
organisation or any other person] to do or
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
abstain from doing any act or to pay a
ransom, shall be punishable with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine."

20. In view of the aforesaid, we
modify the conviction of the appellants
under Section 364-A I.P.C. to one for
offence punishable under Sections 365
I.P.C. Maximum punishment for such
offence is seven years only. Hence, we
modify
the
sentence
from
life
imprisonment to seven years (already in
jail). Fine is reduced to Rs.1,000/- and
default sentence is reduced to six months
which would start after completion of
seven years. The accused shall be entitled
to remission as per law.

21. As the accused are in jail for more
than ten years, we direct them to be
released forthwith in case they are not
required in any other case.

22. Appeal stands partly allowed.

23. Lower court record be sent to the
court below forthwith.

24. Let a copy of this Judgment be
sent to the Jail Authorities concerned and
District Magistrate for compliance.
----------
(2021)02ILR A810
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER , J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3969 of 2013

Mohd. Imran ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Lav Srivastava, Sri Imtiyaz Ali, Sri
Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Shujauddin, Sri
V.P. Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 374(2) & Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302-challenge
to-conviction-deceased was killed by her
brother over the honor issue-she was
requested not to meet the person Hanif
coming to the home-brother did not like
his sister who have a love affair with that
person-incident took place in grave and
sudden provocation-Though, the brother
can never had intention to murdering his
sister- all the witnesses have turned
hostile-The brother of the deceased has
been sentenced for 302 IPC giving it a
picture of honor killing- it is homicidal
death but not murder. Accused held guilty
for Section 304(1) IPC- Since, accused is
in jail for a period of more than 10 years,
he is set free, as he was sentenced for
nine years of R.I. in jail. (Para 1 to 27)

The Appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Suresh @ Kala Vs St. NCT of Delhi, CRLA
No.1284 of 2019

2. Nandlal Vs St. of Mah. (2019) 5 SCC 224

3. Surain Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2017) 5 SCC 796

4. Deepak Vs St. of U.P. (2018) 8 SCC 228

5. Budhi Singh Vs St. of H.P. (2012) 13 SCC 663

6. Atul Thakur Vs St. of H.P. & ors. (2018) 2
SCC 496