Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR
Gauri Mahto @ Gauri Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the kidnapping and subsequent trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on the necessary elements for the conviction under section 364a. (Para 9 , 14) |
| 4. court's conclusion affirming that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. (Para 10 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2015, for the offence under Section 364A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short “IPC”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1051 of 2009 confirming the judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barh, in Sessions Trial No. 1046 of 2004, the present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-and in case of default, further sentence of three months.
3. It is further the case of prosecution that while leaving, the accused persons confined the informant and his wife in separate rooms bolting the doors from outside. The informant somehow freed himself and rushed to the roof, wherefrom h
Kidnapping for ransom – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where prosecution has failed to prove conditions together as envisaged under Section 364-A, IPC.
Kidnapping for ransom – Unless all conditions as enumerated in Section 364A of IPC are fulfilled, no conviction can be recorded.
The prosecution must prove both kidnapping and a ransom demand for conviction under Section 364-A; failure to do so warrants only convictions under lesser charges.
Supreme Court has wide power to alter charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. whilst not causing prejudice to accused.
Call records require certification under Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872.
The prosecution must prove all elements of Section 364(A) IPC, including a clear connection between the act of hurt and the ransom demand; failure to do so warrants a lesser charge.
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law : It is evident that bodily pain i.e. hurt was caused to the child. Further from the messages from the petitioner including the message to throw the child, there was a clear apprehension....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
