Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, JJ.
Bandi Krishna – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1214, 1219 of 2016
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Confessional Statements - Conviction under Section 364A r/w 34 I.P.C. - Section 364A, Section 34 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the admissibility of confessional statements, the requirement of corroborative evidence, and the elements of Section 364A I.P.C. The judgment highlighted the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to the police, the need for corroborative evidence, and the specific elements required to establish the offence under Section 364A I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for the offence under Section 364A r/w 34 I.P.C. based on the confessional statements and evidence of test identification parade. The accused were alleged to have kidnapped the son of P.W.1 for ransom. However, inconsistencies were found in the evidence of the witnesses, and the prosecution failed to provide corroborative evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reliance on the confessional statements and defective test identification parade was erroneous. The prosecution failed to prove the demand for ransom and obtain corroborative evidence. The court concluded that the accused could not be convicted under Section 364A r/w 34 I.P.C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of confessional statements, the requirement for corroborative evidence, and the elements of Section 364A I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confessional statements made to the police are inadmissible for convicting the accused. It emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to establish the offence under Section 364A I.P.C. The court also highlighted the specific elements required to prove the offence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants-A1 to A3 was set aside. The appellants were acquitted for the offence under Section 364A r/w 34 I.P.C. The fine amount imposed was ordered to be returned to the appellants, and the trial Court record was directed to be returned with a copy of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 1214 of 2016 is filed by A3 and Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2016 is filed by A1 and A2 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Both the appeals are filed questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against A1 to A3, vide judgment dated 17.11.2016 in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.
2. The police filed charge sheet stating that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable under Section 364A I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the report given by the father of the boy (P.W.2) (hereinafter called as ‘boy’), i.e., P.W.1-Bandi Bala Subbaiah to the police. The de facto complainant has lodged the report before the police stating that one unknown person telephoned to him and threatened that his son is with him and demanded to pay Rs.12,00,000/- to release his son, otherwise they would kill his son. The incident occurred on 08.04.2013 and thereafter the de facto complainant has lodged the report before the police on 09.04.2013 at 6-00 a.m. and the accused were arrested on 11.04.2013.
3. On conducting a detailed investigation, the police filed the charge sheet after examining the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.8 and P.W.7, who is the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa, who conducted test identification parade of the accused.
4. During the course of investigation, the police has recorded confessional statements of A1 to A3.
5. The brief accusation against the accused is that A1 and A3 hatched up a plan to kidnap P.W.2-Bandi Surya, who is the only son of P.W.1-Bandi Bala Subbaiah to demand money as he has plenty of money and A3 also advised A1 to kidnap son of P.W.1 with the help of another person and he will pass information to A1 for which A1 accepted. On 08.04.2013, A3 telephoned to A1 and asked him to come to kidnap P.W.2. Then A1 took motorcycle of his friend Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 03 AC 7105 and called A2 and informed about their plan by offering share in the money. Then A1 and A2 came to Mydakur at 12-00 noon and telephoned to A3 for which A3 asked/informed them to come saying that everything is ready. Then A1 dropped A2 at G.V.Satram and informed A2 that he will bring the child of P.W.1. Then A1 went to Kesilingayapalli, where he found P.W.2 de-puncturing his bicycle and enquired about whereabouts of P.W.1 who is the father of the boy. Then A1 asked P.W.2-boy to show P.W.1 and picked up him on his motorcycle and went to G.V.Satram where A2 boarded the motorcycle and proceeded to Gangayapalli. After reaching Gangayapalli, they stopped motorcycle and telephoned to P.W.1-Bandi Bala Subbaiah at 2-00 p.m. and informed that they have kidnapped his son and demanded Rs.12,00,000/-. Thereafter, A3-Bandi Krishna telephoned to A1 and confirmed about the kidnap and advised A1 to demand Rs.12,00,000/-. A3 also informed that he will update the information. While A1 and A2 were discussing about the process, the child-P.W.2 escaped through fields and the boy who called his father and informed about his whereabouts. Thereafter, the P.W.2- father went to the boy and picked up the detainee to his home.
6. Basing upon the above said facts, the police filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 364A I.P.C.
7. Originally, the matter was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddutur, and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddutur examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their evidence. The learned Assistant Sessions Court has transferred the case to the Sessions Court. On transferring the case under Section 326 Cr.P.C. to the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 13 of 2014 and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge noticed that the charges were not properly framed, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge has framed additional charge under Section 364A r/w 34 I.P.C. against A1
AI
Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A requires proof of abduction and threats of death or harm, which was established in this case.
The prosecution must prove both kidnapping and a threat to cause death or hurt to establish an offence under Section 364-A IPC; failure to do so leads to modification of charges.
Kidnapping for ransom – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where prosecution has failed to prove conditions together as envisaged under Section 364-A, IPC.
The judgment establishes the importance of witness identification, corroborating evidence, and the interpretation of legal provisions in establishing guilt and upholding convictions in criminal cases....
The essential ingredients for a conviction under Section 364-A IPC include proof of kidnapping, a demand for ransom, and a threat to the victim's life, all of which must be established beyond a reaso....
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 both kidnapping and a ransom demand for conviction under Section 364-A; failure to do so warrants only convictions under lesser charges.
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
