PRITINKER DIWAKER, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Indra Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.—Since these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and relate to same Crime Number, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The Special Judge (DAA)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Etah by judgment and order dated 22.11.2008 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1998 (Crime No. 346 of 1997), P.S. Soron, District Etah convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 364A I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved with the said judgment, present appeals have been preferred by the appellants.
3. Brief facts, as culled out from the record, are that a First Information Report was lodged by the informant, Chandra Pal son of Roopram, resident of Badanpur, Police Station Soron, District Etah, on 22.11.1997 at 2.45 p.m., with the averments that in the night of 21/22.11.1997, as usu
Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and Anr.
Susanta Das vs. State of Orissa
Shivaji Sahab Rao vs. State of Maharashtra
Netra Pal vs. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi)
Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telangana
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 threats to cause death or hurt for a conviction under Section 364A IPC; failure to do so leads to a conviction under Section 365 IPC for wrongful confinement.
The prosecution's failure to establish the fundamental elements of kidnapping and ransom resulted in the High Court overturning the convictions due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
Prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, for committing an offence under Section 364(A) IPC.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.