SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Godugula Keshava - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2458 Of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 2483 Of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 2559 Of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 2570 Of 2018
Decided On : 03-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : T. Diwakar Reddy, Metta Chendra Sekhar Rao, D. Kodandarami Reddy.
For the Respondent: Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364-A, 342, 307, 506, and 411 - Criminal Appeals arising from conviction for kidnapping and related offences - The accused were charged with kidnapping for ransom, but the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the charges, particularly the threat to cause death or hurt - The court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Section 364-A IPC, leading to a modification of charges to Section 365 IPC for some accused. (Paras 4, 10, 19, 40-43)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 222(1) - The court held that a conviction for a lesser offence can be made if the evidence supports it, even if not charged. (Paras 38, 39)

Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with kidnapping a person for ransom, demanding Rs.30,00,000/- and confining him. The trial court convicted several accused under various sections of IPC, but the appeals challenged the sufficiency of evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the charges, particularly the threats made to the victim, leading to a modification of convictions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must prove both the act of kidnapping and the threat to cause death or hurt to establish the offence under Section 364-A IPC.

Result: Appeals partly allowed, convictions modified.

JUDGMENT :

(B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.)

1. As all the four Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case i.e., S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Accused No.4 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2458/2018, A-3 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2483/2018, A-5 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2559/2018 and A-1, A-2, A-6 and A-7 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2570/2018.

3. They along with A-8 were charged for the alleged offence punishable under sections 364-A, 342, 307 and 506 IPC in Cr.No.99/2011 of Yerraguntla Police Station.

4. During pendency of the trial, A-8 died and case against him was abated. A-1 to A-7 were tried by the learned II Asst. Sessions Judge under five charges. First charge is U/s.364-A IPC against A-3 to A-6, second charge is U/s.364-A IPC r/w.34 IPC against A-1 and A-2, third charge is 342 IPC against A-7 and A-8, fourth charge is U/s.307 r/w.511 IPC against A-3 to A-6 and the fifth charge is U/s.506 IPC against A-3 to A-6.

5. The substance of the charge is that on 16.06.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. while P.W-1 and A-1 was going in Bolero vehicle, A-3 to A-6 intercepted the said vehicle, and entered into the Bolero vehicle, sprinkled chilli powder in the eyes of P.W-1 and abducted him in the said car and took him to the house of A-8 and confined him there by keeping watch by A-7 and A-8, and also threatened P.W-1 demanding ransom of Rs.30,00,000/- from P.W-3, and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 364-A, 342, 307 r/w.511 IPC and 506 IPC.

6. After completion of trial, the learned II Addl.Sessions Judge convicted A-1, A-3 to A-6 for the offence U/s.364-A IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The learned II Addl.Sessions Judge also convicted A-2 and A-7 for the offence U/s.411 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The learned II Addl.Sessions Judge further convicted A-4 to A-6 for the offence U/s.506(ii) IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The substantial sentences imposed against the accused were directed to run concurrently.

7. The case of the prosecution as per evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:

(a) A-1 is working as a driver for a Bolero Vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TB 5393 hired by L&T Company, Kadapa, arranged by A-3; P.W-1 is working as Chief Engineering Management in L&T Company; A-1 is working under him as driver.

(b) On 16.06.2011 P.W-1 started at Kadapa in the above Bolero vehicle driven by A-1; Sri P.Bala Chander (P.W-3) accompanied P.W-1 upto Kamalapuram, thereafter P.W-1 proceeded towards Mangapatnam for inspection work. He was returning from Kalamalla railway station and proceeding towards Mangapatnam along with A-1; the vehicle reached a place near Chilamkur village road at about 12.00/12.30 p.m.; when the vehicle crossing a culvert, a person came opposite causing obstruction to the vehicle; A-1 stopped the vehicle; immediately A-4 to A-6 and another person came to the vehicle, opened back door, two persons entered into the jeep, sat beside P.W-1;person who obstructed the movement of jeep came there from front side by the side door and sat back side of P.W-1; the people, who entered into the jeep from back door sprinkled chilli powder on the face of P.W-1; tied a towel coveri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top