Extradition and conspiracy evidence permit lesser-offence trial, but ransom charge needs proof of the additional ingredient.

A surrendered person may be tried in India for a lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for extradition, even if that offence is not expressly named in the extradition order. Applying that principle, the Court treated the extradition objection as failing. The evidence was sufficient to prove kidnapping, wrongful confinement and conspiracy against one accused, because the victim's detention, the relevant premises and vehicle, and the surrounding conduct supported the inference of concerted action. For the other accused, conspiracy-linked offences were upheld on the evidence of her presence and awareness, but the ransom charge failed for want of proof of the additional ransom element, so the acquittal on that count was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants could be tried and convicted in India for the offences found proved on the extradition record, including a lesser offence not expressly named in the extradition order; (ii) whether the evidence established kidnapping, wrongful confinement and criminal conspiracy against Daya Singh; (iii) whether Suman Sood's conviction for conspiracy-linked offences was sustainable, and whether her acquittal for kidnapping for ransom could be reversed.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants could be tried and convicted in India for the offences found proved on the extradition record, including a lesser offence not expressly named in the extradition order.

Analysis: The extradition decree expressly covered kidnapping, abduction and Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The law governing extradition prevents trial for an offence outside the decree, but it permits trial for a lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for securing surrender. Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, as amended, recognises that a surrendered person may be tried for the extradition offence, a lesser offence disclosed by the facts, or an offence for which consent is given. On that basis, the absence of an express reference to Section 365 in the extradition order did not bar prosecution for that lesser offence.

Conclusion: The trial and conviction for the lesser offence were legally permissible, and the extradition objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established kidnapping, wrongful confinement and criminal conspiracy against Daya Singh.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence of the victim, family witnesses and surrounding circumstances established the abduction, detention at a secret place and the demand to secure release of Bhullar. The evidentiary record also proved possession and use of the premises and vehicle connected with the crime. The Court accepted that conspiracy could be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, and that direct evidence was not necessary. The ingredients of kidnapping, wrongful confinement and the ransom-linked offence were held to be proved against Daya Singh beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: Daya Singh's conviction for the proved offences was affirmed.

Issue (iii): Whether Suman Sood's conviction for conspiracy-linked offences was sustainable, and whether her acquittal for kidnapping for ransom could be reversed.

Analysis: The evidence showed Suman Sood's presence in the house where the victim was kept, her awareness of the victim's detention and her role in looking after him, which supported an inference of conspiracy for the offences of kidnapping, wrongful confinement and related unlawful detention. However, there was no evidence linking her to any demand for ransom or to the alleged coercive objective required for Section 364A. In the absence of direct or circumstantial proof connecting her with the ransom element, the trial court's acquittal on that charge was a reasonable view and should not have been disturbed.

Conclusion: Her conviction for the conspiracy-linked offences was upheld, but her conviction for kidnapping for ransom was set aside and her acquittal on that charge was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal of Daya Singh failed entirely, while Suman Sood succeeded only to the extent of securing restoration of her acquittal under the ransom charge; the remaining convictions were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A person extradited on specified charges may be tried for a lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for surrender, and an appellate court should not reverse a reasonable acquittal on a charge requiring proof of an additional ingredient when the record contains no evidence of that ingredient.

---