Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Jitendra Kumar, JJ.
Krishna Yadav, Son of Sitarama Yadav and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.481 of 1996, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 499 of 1996
Decided On : 01-04-2024
KIDNAPPING - ABDUCTION FOR RANSOM - IPC Section 364-A - The court discussed Section 364-A of the IPC, which defines the offense of kidnapping or abduction for ransom. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove both the act of kidnapping and the threat of death or injury to the victim. The court interpreted the conjunction 'and' in the statute to mean that both conditions must be satisfied for a conviction. The lack of evidence supporting the threat element led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 364-A IPC for allegedly abducting Pankaj Kumar Singh for ransom. The prosecution claimed that Pankaj was taken by the appellants under the pretense of going to Bari Bagh, and a ransom demand was made for his release. The informant, Siya Sharan Singh, reported the abduction after a delay of three days.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of Section 364-A IPC. The victim, Pankaj, had willingly accompanied the accused, and there was no credible evidence of threats or demands for ransom. The inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of corroborating evidence led the court to doubt the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the elements of kidnapping and the threat of death or injury as required under Section 364-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a conviction under Section 364-A IPC, both the act of kidnapping and a threat to cause death or injury must be established. The use of 'and' in the statute indicates that both conditions are necessary for a conviction. The prosecution's failure to provide reliable evidence on these points resulted in the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 364-A IPC, granting them the benefit of the doubt.
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel representing the appellants in both the appeals submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 499 of 1996 and has got Vakalatnama from the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 481 of 1996 which he would be filing tomorrow i.e. on 02.04.2024.
2. He is permitted to do so.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 29th August, 1996 and the order of sentence of the even date by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and they have been ordered to suffer a sentence of rigorous life imprisonment by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Session Case No. 590 of 1994 in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 113 of 1993 (G.R. Case No. 997 of 1993).
Prosecution Case
5. The prosecution case is based on the written report submitted by one Siya Sharan Singh (PW-5) who is the father of the victim Pankaj Kumar Singh (PW-6). In his written report (Exhibit ‘1’) submitted to the Officer Incharge of Khaira Police Station on 21.08.1993, the informant alleged that on 18.08.1993 at 05:00 PM, his son Pankaj Kumar Singh (PW-6) along with his co-villager Jaikant Singh (PW-2) had gone to Khaira Bazar to purchase vegetables. At Khaira Chowk, PW-6 met co-accused Bhuneshwar Yadav @ Bhutto Yadav who along with his brother, namely, Upendra Yadav @ Teriya Yadav was on a motorcycle. It is alleged that Bhutto Yadav told Pankaj Kumar to accompany him to Bari Bagh for a work. He assured that they will return soon. The accused Bhuneshwar Yadav @ Bhutto Yadav and his brother were acquainted since the time the son of the informant was studying in Maksudan Singh Residential School at Jamui. Bhutto Yadav is a resident of neighbourhood and both the brothers were regularly visiting the school.
In his written report, PW-5 has further alleged that Bhuneshwar Yadav got Pankaj Kumar Singh to sit on his motorcycle and they went towards Bari Bagh. At the time of his departure, Pankaj Kumar Singh told Jaikant Singh (PW-2) to stay there and he told that he would return very soon. Jaikant Singh (PW-2) waited for a long period but Pankaj Kumar Singh (PW-6) did not return then Jaikant Singh returned home by the bicycle and informed entire things to the informant (PW-5). Jaikant Singh (PW-2) also told the informant that when he was visiting the school to drop the eatables to Pankaj Kumar, he used to see Bhutto Yadav and his brother there and he identified them. PW-5 claimed that he searched his son everywhere but he was not traceable. Bhuneshwar Yadav @ Bhutto Yadav and his brother both were not available in their house and their family members did not inform anything about them. It is for this reason, the information was being provided to the Police Station on 21.08.1993. The informant (PW-5) claimed that he believed that Bhuneshwar Yadav @ Bhutto Yadav and his brother Upendra Yadav @ Teriya Yadav both had abducted his son for extortion of money and on non-payment of money, they would kill his son. The informant claimed that Bhutto Yadav is a dreaded criminal, therefore, while searching Pankaj Kumar Singh, appropriate legal action be taken against the accused persons.
6. On the basis of the written report (Exhibit ‘1’), the Officer Incharge, Khaira Police Station registered a formal FIR (Exhibit ‘5’) giving rise to Khaira P.S. Case No. 113 of 1993 under Section 364/34 IPC against Upendra Yadav @ Teriya Yadav and his brother Bhuneshwar Yadav @ Bhutto Yadav.
7. After investigation, police submitted a chargesheet against the accused persons under Section 364-A IPC. Learned Magistrate vide his order dated 19.07.1994 took cognizance of the offence under Section 364-A IPC but after finding that the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC
The prosecution must prove the specific intent and compulsion required for the offences under Section 366 and Section 452 of the IPC. Thorough investigation and the recording of the victim's statemen....
Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A requires proof of abduction and threats of death or harm, which was established in this case.
(1) Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by defence to doubt evidence of injured witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial.(2) Vic....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence led to the quashing of the conviction.
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....
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
