# '~ SUMAN SOOD @ KAMAL JEET KAUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - **Citation:** [2007] 6 S.C.R. 499 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2007-05-14 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2006 - **Bench:** C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramany An - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/suman-sood-kamal-jeet-kaur-v-state-of-rajasthan-22992 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote B ~ Constitution of India-Article 33-Penal Code, 1860--Sections 120A, 1208, 343, 346, 353, 364A, 365, 420, 468 & 471-Explosive Substances Act, 1908-Sections 4 & 5-Extradition Act, 1962 as amended by Extradition c (Amendment) Act, 1993-Section 21-Accused, husband and wife, irrvolved in kidnapping-Accused were arrested and extradited from outside the country and were charged for offences of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping for ransom and wrongful confinement-Trial court corrvicted and sentenced both the accused for the charged offences and acquitted the accused-wife of offence of kidnapping for ransom-High Court confirming the corrviction and sentence D of the accused and rc:versing the order of acquittal of the accused-wifeT Correctness of-Held, on evidence on record, the prosecution has proved ) beyond all reasonable doubt the charges framed against the accused except for the offence of kidnapping for ransom by the accused-wife-Hence, order of acquittal passed by the trial court upheld-Terrorist and Disruptive E Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Appellants-accused, husband and wife, were involved in kidnapping of a politician's son to seek release of one of their members of a terrorist organization. The victim was kidnapped in a car and held captive in the house of the accused for some days before he was released. Both the accused were F arrested from United States of Ameri,~a and were extradited to India, for commission of offences under sections 343, 346, 353, 364A, 365, 420, 468, 471, 120A and 1208 IPC and for offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-husband under sections 364A, 365, 343 r/w 1208 and 346 r/w 1208 IPC and the appellant-wife under sections 365 r/w 1208, 343 r/w 1208 G and 346 r/w 1208 IPC and acquitted her of offence under section 364A r/w 1208 IPC. The appellants preferred appeals before High Court being "r aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence. The State also filed an appeal against the order of acquittal of the appellant-wife under section 3.64A 49<) H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A r/w 1208 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants and allowed the appeal of the State by reversing the order of acquittal of the appellant-wife. In appeals to this Court, the appellants contended that they could not be prosecuted under section 364A IPC since there was no reference of the B offence in the Extradition Order; that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the kidnapping of the victim was for ransom for conviction of the offence under section 364A IPC; and that the prosecution did not prove that the accused were in possession of the house or the car in which the victim was kidnapped belonged to them. The appellant-wife further contended that -- Rosiline George v. Union of India, 11994] 2 SCC 80: JT (1993) 6 SC A ~-. 51; Daya Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, 12001] 4 SCC 516; JT 12001] 5 sec 31 referred to. Thiradv. Ferrandino, 365 Fred Supp. 1155, referred to. 1.3. The kidnapping of the victim has been clearly established and B cogently proved by the prosecution evidence. The trial court considered the witnesses in its proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the victim ~, was kidnapped. There is no infirmity in the prosecution evidence and in the -< findings recorded by both the Court The demand was clearly communicated through phone calls for which the victim was kidnapped. It cannot be said c that since nothing was mentioned in the fax messages, the kidnapping, abduction and detention of the victim was not for ransom. Neither the trial court nor the High Court has committed either an error of fact or an error of law in convicting the accused-husband for the offences punishable under sections 365 and 364A IPC. !Paras 36, 38 and 39] (514-C, E, F; 515-F, G] D 1.4. The evidence as to the purchase and exclusive possession of the --r house by the accused where the victim was kept is established and prosecution evidence has been accepted by both the courts. Likewise, ownership of the ) car and possession thereof by the accused is equally proved. Nothing was shown as to how the courts were wrong in relying upon the evidence and why such evidence should be discarded. [Para 40] (515-H; 516-A] E 1.5. Both the Courts have considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded a finding that identity of the accused was established beyond doubt The evidence of the victim was natural and inspired confidence. The photographs of the accused shown on television and published in F newspapers does not in any way adversely affect the prosecution, if otherwise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reliable and the Court is satisfied as to identity of the accused. It is thus proved beyond doubt that the accusedhusband had committed offences punishable under section 343 read with section 1208 IPC as also under section 346 read with 1208 IPC. [Para 41] [516-C-E) G 1.6. An inference as to conspiracy can be drawn from the surrounding circumstances inasmuch as normally, no direct evidence of conspiracy is ' r available. It is clear that an inference drawn by both the Courts as to criminal conspiracy by the accused-wife cannot be held ill-founded. From the prosecution evidence, it is amply proved that the victim had been kidnapped by accused- H 502 SUIPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A husband and his companions. The accused-wife was very much aware of the said fact She was all throughout keeping a watch on the victim. She used to give food, medicine etc. siince the victim was not keeping good health. Both the courts were right in convicting the accused-wife for offences punishable under sections 364 read with 1208, 343 read with 1208 and 346 read with 1208 IPC. There is no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the courts B below and there is no ground to interfere with the said finding. !Para 531 [519-G-H; 520-AI Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, [1964) 2 SCR 368: AIR 11965) SC 82; Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, [ 19711 3 SCC C 432; Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), [1988) 3 SCC 609; AIR [19881 SC (1883); Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, (200318 SCC 461; AIR (2003) SC 4427; JT (2003) Supp 1 SC 200, referred to. Halsbury's Laws of England {4th Edition: Vol. 11}, referred to. 1.7. There is no evidence at all-direct or indirect-to connect accusedD wife with kidnapping of the victim for ransom. She was not a member of the party in the car in which the victim was kidnapped. It is not even an allegation of the prosecution that the accused had at any occasion made demand for release of the member of the terrorist organization or she was present when · such telephone calls were made to the family members of the victim. There is nothing to show that she was a member of the terrorist organization. There E is also no evidence to show that she even knew the member of the terrorist organization or was interested in his release. The victim nowhere stated in his deposition that during the entire period, she had told him that he was kidnapped and kept there so that one of the members of the terrorist organization should be released. There is no iota of evidence to connect the F accused with ransom and the alleged demand of the accused-husband for release of the member of the terrorist organization. G [Para 63) [521-F-H; 522-A-B) Concise Oxford English Dictionary [2002); Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Edition) referred to. 1.8. Merely on the ground that the accused-wife was staying with her husband in her house, it cannot be held that she was in 'continued association' and involved as a co-conspirator in criminal conspiracy with accused-husband in keeping the victim and in keeping the victim in her house. No witness has directly or even indirectly deposed about ransom by the accused-wife. It is H settled law that in case two views are possible and the trial court has acquitted .. SUMAN SOOD@KAMALJEETKAUR v. STATEOFRAJASTHAN[C.K. THAKKER,J.l 503 ")- the accused, the High Court would not interfere with such order of acquittal. A On the facts and in the circumstances in its entirety and considering the evidence as a whole, it cannot be said that by acquitting the accused-wife for offences punishable under section 364A read with section 1208 IPC, the trial court had acted illegally or unlawfully. The High Court ought not to have set aside the finding of the acquittal of the accused-wife for an offence under B section 364A read with section 1208 IPC. (Paras 66, 67, 68 and 701 (522-F; 523-B, C; 524-D) \ State· (NCT) of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru, (2005[ 11 SCC -~ 600; JT (2005) 7 SC 1 and Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, JT (2007) 3 SC 316, (2007) 3 SCALE 90, referred to. c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2006. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2006 of the High Court of Judicature ofRajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of2004. D ! WITH ) Cr!. Appeal No. 727 of 2007. Sushi! Kumar, Kamini Jaiswal, Dasvir Singh Dalee, Shomila Bakshi, Sunita E Dwivedi, Vinay Arora and Sudarshan Singh Ravat for the Appellant. Milind Kumar (for Aruneshwar Gupta) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -y C.K. THAKKER, J. I. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2965 of2006. F 2. Present criminal appeals are filed by Daya Singh Lahoriya @ Rajeev Sudan@ Vinay Kumar and Suman Sood@ Kamal Jeet Kaur@ Kanwaljit Kaur, husband and wife respectively against the judgment and order passed by the .• High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) dated March 20, 2006 G in S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1247 of2004 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 11 of2005 respectively. y 3. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against Daya Singh for offences punishable under H 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R. A Sections 364A, 365, 343 read with 120B and 346 read with 120B Indian Penal Code (!PC). 111e said conviction was recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Category I, Jaipur on October 20, 2004 in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2003. So far as Suman Sood is concerned, she was convicted by the trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 365 read with 120B, 343 B read with 120B and 346 read with 120B !PC. She was, however, acquitted for offences punishable under Section 364A and in the alternative under Sections 364A read with I 20B !PC. Her challenge against conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 365 read with 120B, 343 read with 120B and 346 read with l 20B !PC was negatived by the High Court. But her , ).. acquittal for offences punishable under Sections 364A read with 120B was set c aside by the High Court in an appeal by the State and she was convicted for the said offence and was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. PROSECUTION CASE 4. To appreciate the controversy raised by the parties, few relevant facts D may be stated. 5. It was the case of the prosecution that one Rajendra Mirdha, son of ~ Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha was staying ait 81-C, Azad Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. He used to regularly wake up at about 6.30/6.45 in the morning and to take walk for about an hour or an hour and a half. According to the prosecution, E on February 17, 1995, as usual, he left his residence for a morning walk at aboμt 7 .00 a.m. He had hardly completed two or three rounds and when again he reached at the road for further rounds, he saw a white Maruti car and one man came out of it. The said man asked Rajendra Mirdha about the location of House No. 105 or 106. Before he could reply, he was pushed into the car F and was taken away. There were three persons in the car having weapons. Rajendra Mirdha did notJtnow why he was kidnapped. After some time, Mr. Mirdha was taken in -One .house. The kidnappers then told Mr. Mirdha that ..,.- they were the members ofthe Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF). One of their members, Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar was arrested at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on the night of January 18-19, 1995 on his return to India G after•the German authorities declined to grant him asylum and the kidnappers wanted him to be released. It was also stated that the kidnappers had nothing agairlst Rajendra Mirdha personally. It was also the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time, Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha, father of Rajendra Mirdha was heading Joint Parliamentary Committee, being a Chairman of the Committee. ~ H According to the kidnappers, Shri R'lill Niwas Mirdha was thus an influential SUMAN SOOD@KAMALJEETKAUR v. STATEOFRAJASTHAN [C.K. THAKKER,J.l 505 person and was in a position to get the said act done by the Government. A According to the prosecution, PW 5 Udai Rani Mirdha, wife of Rajendra Mirdha received a telephonic call at about 8.40 a.m. from an unknown person l who stated that Rajendra Mirdha had been made hostage and until and unless ' Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar was freed, they would not release Rajendra Mirdha. He further stated that neither Police should be informed nor the B telephone be tapped. The caller also stated that he would again telephone Udai Rani Mirdha. Udai Rani informed the above incident and a call from ' unknown person to Harendra Mirdha, PW 29, younger brother of Rajendra ·~· Mirdha. Harendra Mirdha went to Ashok Nagar Police station and lodged First Information Report (FIR) about abduction of his elder brother Rajendra Mirdha. A case was registered as FIR No. 57 of 1995 (Ex.P-29) under Section c 365 !PC and investigation started. During the investigation, according to the prosecution, it was revealed that accused Daya Singh, Suman Sood and other persons were involved in the abduction of Rajendra Mirdha. Necessary steps were, therefore, taken to arrest the accused. Daya Singh and Suman Sood were arrested from Minneapolis Airport, Minnesota, USA on August 3, 1995 D while they were illegally trying to cross over to Canada. The United States ,. District Judge, Northern District of Texas. Fort Worth Division allowed the extradition of accused Daya Singh to India inter alia for offences punishable under Sections 343, 346, 353, 364A, 365, 420, 468, 471, 120A and 1208 IPC as also for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Likewise, extradition of accused Suman Sood was E allowed for offences punishable under Sections 343, 346, 353, 364A, 420, 468, 471, 120A and 1208 !PC. It appears that after the accused were brought to India, prosecution was launched against them also for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ("TADA" for short). Since the order of extradition did not mention trial of offences under TADA, F Daya Singh filed a Writ Petition in this Court by invoking Article 32 of the ''1'' Constitution contending that the prosecution under TADA was without authority, power and jurisdiction and no prosecution could have been launched. This Court, considering the relevant provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962, in the light of the order of extradition held the contention well-founded and allowed the petition holding that no prosecution under TADA could have G been instituted. The said decision was reported as Daya Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, [200 I] 4 SCC 516 : JT [200 I] 5 SCC 31. After the above decision, prosecution for offences under TADA was dropped, the case was 'r' transferred from the Designated Court, Ajmer under TADA to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City which was finally tried and decided by the H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Category No. I, Jaipur and was registered as Sessions Case No. 26 of 2003. DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT 6. The prosecution examined 61 witnesses. Several documents were also B produced on record. The parties were heard and finally on October 20, 2004, the trial Court recorded an order of conviction as also of sentence. c D E F 0 ~ 7. So far as Daya Singh is concerned, he was convicted and sentenced as under - uls. 364 AIPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. U/s. 365 !PC: To suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. U/s. 343/1208 !PC: To suffer imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500l- in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. U/s. 346/1208 !PC: To suffer imprisonment for two years. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 8. Accused Suman Sood was convicted as under - U/s. 365/1208 !PC: To suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. U/s. 343/1208 !PC: Th suffer imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. U/s. 346/1208 !PC: , >- r y ""( SUMAN SOOD@KAMALJEET KAUR>. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 507 ~ To suffer imprisonment for two years. A DECISION OF HIGH COURT I ~ ~ 9. Both husband and wife were aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence and approached the High Court of Rajasthan. The State was also aggrieved by the order of acquittal of Suman Sood for offence under B Section 364A, in the alternative under Section 364A read with Section 120B, IPC and preferred an appeal. As already noted earlier, appeals of both the ~. accused were dismissed by the High Court while the appeal of State of ~ Rajasthan against Suman Sood was allowed and she was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section l 20B, !PC. The High c Court also ordered that looking to the gravity and dastardly nature of acts and consequences, Daya Singh as well as Suman Sood "shall not be released from the prison unless they served out at least twenty years of imprisonment including the period already undergone by them". APPEALSJN SUPREME COURT D I 0. The above orders have been challenged by the appellan!s-accused I in this Court. 11. On August 21, 2006, leave was granted in appeal filed by Suman Sood. Printing was dispensed with and appeal was ordered to be heard on E SLP Paper Books. Parties were directed to file additional documents. It appears that an application for bail was submitted by Suman Sood stating therein that she had undergone the sentence for which conviction had been recorded by the trial Court against her and she had to remain in jail because of the order of conviction recorded by the High Court for an offence punishable under Section 364A read with 120B, !PC. She, therefore, pray~d that she be released F on bail. The Court, however, instead of granting prayer of bail, directed the Registry to place the matter for final hearing. Daya Singh had also preferred an appeal against his conviction. On February 6, 2007, when the appeal of Suman Sood was called out for hearing, it was stated that Daya Singh was convicted by the trial Court as well as by the High Court and he had also G filed an appeal, but it was at the stage of S.L.P. and notice was issued, but no leave was granted. It was further stated that judgment of the High Court was common in both the matters, but the matter of Daya Singh was not placed ·y on Board. The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice oflndia for obtaining appropriate orders so that both the matters could be placed before one Bench. Now, all the H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A matters have been placed for hearing before us. SUBMISSIONS BY APPELLANTS 12. We have heard Mr. Sushi! Kumar, Senior Advocate for Suman Sood, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate for Daya Singh for the appellants-accused and B Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate for the respondent-State. 13. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sushi! Kumar for Suman Sood and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for Daya Singh contended that Extradition Treaty had been entered into between the United States of America and Great Britain in 1931. In the said Treaty, there was no reference of offence of kidnapping for ransom C punishable under Section 364A, IPC. Prosecution and trial for offences under Section 364A and/or Section 364A read with Section 120B, !PC was, therefore, illegal, without jurisdiction and conviction is liable to be set aside. It was also urged that no case had been made out against the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 364A, !PC inasmuch as ingredients of Section 364A, D !PC had not been established by the prosecution. No witness had stated that the accused had administered any threat or asked to pay any ransom for the release of victim Rajendra Mirdha. Fax messages received by Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha made no reference of ransom. Again, there was no evidence worth the name which would prove that Daya Singh was a member of KLF or he had any link with Bhullar. It was urged that identity of the accused was not E established beyond doubt and the prosecution witnesses had admitted that photographs of accused were shown on Television and printed in Newspapers. Identification Parade, therefore, was mere farce and an empty formality. It was also not proved that House No. B-117, Model Town exclusively belonged to 'Daya Singh wherein Rajendra Mirdha was detained. Ownership of white F Maruti car equally was not proved. There was no evidence as to conspiracy and both the Courts were wrong in convicting the appellants for the offences with which he was charged. 14. On behalf of Suman Sood. certain additional arguments were 1 advanced. It was contended that extradition was not granted for an offence G punishable under Section 365, !PC. She, therefore, could not have been prosecuted and tried nor could have been convicted for the said offence. Her conviction, hence, is liable to be quashed and set aside. It was also urged that when she was acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 364A, !PC and in the alternative for an offence punishable under Section 364A/120B, I !PC, the High Court was clearly wrong in convicting her under Section 364A H SUMANSOOD@KAMALJEETKAUR "· STATEOFRAiASTHAN[C.K. THAKKER,J.] 509 ~-·.' read with Section 1208, !PC. It was also urged that the High Court had. A ignored an important consideration that she was not an accused in Vaishali Nagar FIR No. 44 of 1995. In FIR No.84 of 1995 of Ma[viya Nagar, she was prosecuted along with her husband Daya Singh for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, IPC and also under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, but the trial Court acquitted her observing that there B was no evidence on the basis of which she could be convicted. Leave to Appeal against acquittal of Suman Sood was also dismissed by the High Court and the said decision has attained finality. In view of !he above facts, ; even if it is held that h~r conviction for other offences is not illegal, the order -<. of the High Court setting aside acquittal for an offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section 1208, !PC deserves to be set aside. c SUBMISSIONS BY STATE 15. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that order of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court needs no interference. Regarding extradition, it was stated that Extradition Treaty was of 1931. Section 364A, D !PC was inserted in the statute book in the year 1993. Obviously, therefore, ,- no reference was found of the said provision in the Treaty. But in the ) Extradition-Order, dated June 11, 1997, passed by the American Court, express reference was made to Section 364A, !PC and hence, no objection can be raised against trial of accused under the said provision. E 16. Similarly, extradition of accused Daya Singh was also allowed for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The trial of the accused, therefore, cannot be held to be unlawful or without legal sanction. 17. On merits, it was submitted that there was sufficient evidence of F y kidnapping and also ofransom, which was demand of release of Bhullar. The evidence established kidnapping, abduction and detention of Rajendra Mirdha in House No. B-117, Model Town, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur by Daya Singh. It was also proved that white Maruti car in which victim was taken, belonged to Daya Singh. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeals deserve to be G dismissed by confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court ,. 18. We have given our anxious and most thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both the sides. We have also perused the judgments of both the courts and have minutely gone through the evidence on record: H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A EXTRADITION OF ACCUSED 19. As to extradition, it may be stated that on December 22, 1931, a Treaty had been entered into between the United States of America and Great Britain. It provided reciprocal extradition of accused/convicts of any of the crimes or offences enumerated in Article 3. The said Article, inter alia included B the following crimes/offences; c D E 7. Kidnapping or false imprisonment. 9. abduction 20. Forgery, etc. Article 7 reads thus; A person surrenderied can in no case be kept in custody or be brought to trial in the territories of the High Contracting Party to whom the surrender has been made for any other crime or offence, or on account of any other matters, than those for which the extradition shall have taken place, until he has been restored or has had an opportunity of returning, to the territories of the High Contracting Pa1ty by whom he has been surrendered. 20. Article 14 of the Treaty expressly stated that His Britannic Majesty p acceded to the Treaty on behalf of any of his Dominions named in the Treaty. It, inter alia included India. 21. The Extradition Treaty of 1931 continues to hold the field. In Thirad v. Ferrandino, 355 Fred Supp 1155, the Government of India sought the extradition of J, an Indian citizen and a resident alien in the USA. The G allegation againstJwas that while serving in Indian Navy, he embezzled huge sum of money. Extradition of J was, therefore, demanded. J challenged the action on the ground that 1931 Treaty was between USA and Great Britain when India was a Dominion of Great Britain. In 1950, India became Republican State and the Treaty which was as British-India did not survive. The contention, ~ If however, was negatived and extradition of J was granted. SUMAN SOOD@KAMALJEET KAUR v. ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 511 22. In Rosi/ine George v. Union of India, [1994) 2 SCC 80: JT (1993) A >--· 6 SC 51, this Court referring to leading decisions on the point held that it is well-settled legal proposition in International Law that a change in the form of Government of a contracting State wou Id not put an end to its treaties. India, even under British Rule, had retained its personality as a State under International Law. It was a member of the United Nations in its own right. B Grant of Independence in 1947 and status of Sovereign Republic in 1950 did not put an end to the treaties entered into by the British Government prior to August 15, 1947 or January 26, 1950 on behalf of India . ... 23. The Extradition Treaty between India and United States of America ~ ' entered in the year 1931, therefore, holds the field, is subsisting and is c operative. 24. Moreover, in the instant case, there is Final Judgment of Certification ofExtraditability dated June II, 1997, which was in the nature of judgment, order or decree, expressly granting extradition of Daya Singh and Suman Sood for various offences alleged to have been committed by them. Section 364A, D !PC has been mentioned explicitly in the said judgment. Both these documents have been proved by PW 56 S.P. Khadagwat. ,, ) 25. In fact, in the light of the order of extradition of Daya Singh for the offences specified in the extradition decree, a contention was raised by him in this Court that he could not be prosecuted for offences punishable under E TADA, which contention had been upheld by this Court in Daya Singh. 26. In the operative part, the Court stated; "In view of the aforesaid position in law, both on international law as well as the relevant statute in this country, we dispose of these F cases with the conclusion that a fugitive brought into this country -.,- under an Extradition Decree can be tried only for the offences mentioned in the extradition decree and for no other offence and the Criminal Courts of this country will have no jurisdiction to try such fugitive for any other offence". (emphasis supplied) G 27. It, therefore, cannot be successfully contended that the appellantsaccused could not have been prosecuted and tried for an offence punishable under Section 364A, !PC. The contention of the appellants, therefore, has no )- substance and must be rejected. H 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A 28. On behalf of Suman Sood, one more argument was advanced. It was contended that Extradition Order in her case did not refer to Section 365, !PC but both the Courts convicted her for the said offence under Section 365/ 1208, !PC which was illegal, unlawfu I and without authority of law. Her conviction and imposition of sentence for an offence punishable under Section B 365 read with Section 1208, !PC, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 29. We find no substance in the said contention as well. It is no doubt true that Section 365, !PC had not been mentioned in the order of extradition. 811t as already seen earlier, Section 364A, IPC had been included in the decree. Now, it is well-settled that if the accused is charged for a higher offence and C on the evidence led by the prosecution, the Court finds that the accused has not committed that offence but is equally satisfied that he has committed a lesser offence, then he can be convicted for such lesser offence. Thus, if A is charged with an offence of committing murder of 8, and the Court finds that 8 has not committed murder as defined in Section 300, !PC but is convinced that 8 has committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting D to murder (as defined in Section 299, !PC), there is no bar on the Court in convicting 8 for the said offence and no grievance can be made by 8 against such conviction. E F G H 30. The same principle applies to extradition cases. Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 as originally enacted read thus; "Section 21: Accused or convicted person surrendered or returned by foreign State or Commonwealth country not to be tried for previous offence:- Whenever any person .accused or convicted of an offence, which if committed in India, would be an extradition offence, is surrendered or returned by a foreign State or Commonwealth country, that person shall not, until he has been restored or has had an opportunity of returning to that State or country, be tried in India for an offence committed prior to the surrender or return, other than the extradition offence proved by the facts on which the surrender or ,return is based." 31,. The section, however, was amended in 1993 by the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Act 66of1993). The amended section now reads as under; 'fSection 21 - Accused or convicted person surrendered or returned b'y foreign State not to be tried for certain offences. - Whenever any r SUMAN SOOD@KAMALJEET KAUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (C.K. THAKKER, J] 513 ,.. person accused or convicted of an offence, which, if committed in A India would be an extradition offence, is surrendered or returned by a foreign State, such person shall not, until he has been restored or has had an opportunity of returning to that State, be tried in India for an offence other than- (a) the extradition offence in relation to which he was surrendered or B returned; or (b) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes -"'( of securing his surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his surrender or return could not be lawfully made; or c ( c) the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent." (emphasis supplied) D 32. It is, therefore, clear that the general principle of administration of criminal justice applicable and all throughout applied to Domestic or Municipal .._( Law has also been extended to International Law or Law of Nations and to·. ) cases covered by Extradition-Treaties. 33. In Daya Singh, this Court dealing with amended Section 21 of the E Extradition Act, stated; "The provision of the aforesaid section places restrictions on the trial of the person extradited and it operates as a bar to the trial of the fugitive criminal for any other offence until the condition of restoration or opportunity to return is satisfied. Under the amended F Act of 1993, therefore, a fugitive could be tried for cny lesser offence, disclosed by the facts proved or even for the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent. It thus, enables to try the fugitive for a lesser offence, without restoring him to the State or for any other offence, if the State concerned gives its consent". G (emphasis supplied) 34. Now, it cannot be disputed that an offence under Section 365, IPC -'..;,.. is a lesser offence than the offence punishable under Section 364A, IPC. Since extradition of Suman Sood was allowed for a crime punishable with higher H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A offence (Section 364A, !PC), her prosecution and trial for a lesser offence (Section 365, !PC) cannot be hdd to be without authority of law. The contention, therefore, has no force and is hereby rejected. MERITS B 35. Having disposed of preliminary objections raised by the appellants, let us now come to the merits of the matter. DAYA SINGH LAHORIYA 36. So far as kidnapping of Rajendra Mirdha is concerned, it has been C clearly established and cogently proved by prosecution evidence. In our opinion, the trial Court was right in relying upon testimony of PW I Prem Devi, maid servant of Rajendra Mirdha, PW 2 Rakesh Kumar, son of PW I, PW 3 Hemram, Chef at the House of Rajendra Mirdha, PW 5 Udai Rani Mirdha, wife ofRajendra Mirdha, PW 6 Kishore Singh, a neighbour of victim Rajendra Mirdha, who in his evidence stated that he saw a white Maruti car D in that area on the previous night of February 16, 1995 at about 8.00 p.m., and most importantly, PW 9, victim Rajendra Mirdha himself. PW 29 Harendra Mirdha, real brother of Rajendra Mirdha who was informed by Udai Rani Mirdha about kidnapping of her husband Rajendra Mirdha and on the basis of the said information, Harendra Mirdha lodged a complaint. PW 50 Shri Ram E Niwas Mirdha and PW 36 Hari Kishen also corroborated the incident of kid11apping of Rajendra Mirdha. The trial Court, in our opinion, considered the evidence of the witnesses in its proper perspective and came to the conclusion that Rajendra Mirdha was kidnapped. We see no infirmity in the prosecution evidence nor in the finding recorded by both the courts. Kidnapping of Rajendra Mirdha is thus clearly established. F 37. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that kidnapping of Rajendra Mirdha was for ransom or any demand was made by accused Daya Singh for release of Rajendra Mirdha. It may, however, be stated that it was the case of the G prosecution from the very beginning that Rajendra Mirdha was kidnapped only to get Bhullar, a member of Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) released and s'nce Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha, father of victim Rajendra Mirdha was holdll\g an important office of Chairman of Joint Parliamentary Committee, he could·. exercise his influence to get said Bhullar released. PW 5 Udai Rani Mirdhft, in her evidence, clearly deposed that after her husband was kidnapped · H at aboμt 7.00 a.m. on February 17, 1995, she received a phone call from .. ,.,. ~ ·~( .> SUMAN SOOD @ KAMALJEET KAUR r. ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN [ C. K. THAKKER, J.] 5 J 5 kidnappers which was picked up by her. The caller told her that Rajendra A Mirdha had been kidnapped by them. The caller also told Udai Rani to write . down name of Bhullar who should be released by exercising influence by her father-in-law Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha. PW 9 Rajendra Mirdha also deposed that the kidnappers told him that they were the members of Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) and wanted one of the members (Bhullar) to be released who had B been arrested. PW 29 Harendra Mirdha corroborated the version of Udai Rani. PW 50 Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha also stated that he used to receive calls from kidnappers that Bhullar should be released else he would have to face serious consequences. The witness also deposed that the caller stated that the witness could even talk to the Prime Minister for release of Bhullar and the Prime Minister would not decline such request. It is true that PW 52 Rakesh c Kumar, owner of the Fax shop at Rohtak deposed that one fax message was sent to Delhi while the other was sent to Chandigarh. It is also true that he expressed his inability to identify the accused as sender of fax messages. But the witness _had been declared 'hostile' by ·the prosecution and while answering a question by the Public Prosecutor, the witness stated that he had correctly D identified the person in jail who had sent fax messages but added that it was not Daya Singh. He stated that it was not true to say that he was refusing to identify the accused due to fear . 38. It is true that two fax messages (Ex. P-19 and P-20) sent by Rajendra Mirdha and received by Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha made no reference to any E demand or ransom. In our judgment, however, the message had already been conveyed through a telephone call to Udai Rani Mirdha, wife of victim Rajendra Mirdha as also to Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha, father of Rajendra Mirdha. Obviously, therefore, the demand was clearly communicated for which Rajendra Mirdha was kidnapped.