2004(3)ACR2688(SC), 2004(2)ALD(Cri)833, 2004CriLJ4645, JT2004(8)SC72, 2005(1)PLJR42, 2004(7)SCALE671, (2004)8SCC95

This was clearly conveyed to the victim PW-2. He was even conveyed the amount to be paid. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the courts below to warrant any interference. [447-D; 448-A] 2.1. Section 364A of IPC refers to both `Kidnapping' and `Abduction'. Latter is defined in Section 362. The provision envisages two types of abduction i.e. (1) by force or by compulsion; and/or (2) inducement by deceitful means. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of the victim from any place. The case at hand falls in the second category. [446-C, D] 2.2. To `Induce, means to `lead into'. Deceit according to its plain dictionary meaning signifies anything intended to mislead another. It is a matter of intention and even if promise held out by the accused was fulfilled by him, question that arises is whether he was acting in a bona fide manner. [446-E] Black's Law Dictionary, referred to. 3. It cannot be laid down as a straight-jacket formula that the demand for payments has to be made to a person who ultimately pays. After making the demand to the kidnapped or abducted person merely because the demand could not be conveyed to some other person, as the accused is arrested in the meantime, does not take away the offence out of purview of Section 364A IPC. It has to be seen in such a case as to what was the object of kidnappingor abduction. Essence of abduction is causing to stay in isolation and demand for ransom. The demand in the present case has already been made by conveying it to the victim. There can be no definitive manner in which demand is to be made.