Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1393 of 2018
(3.9.2024)
Sunil Singh @ Buda Singh ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364A, 365, 368, and 120B [Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 140(2), 140(3), 142 and 61(2) – Kidnapping – Conspiracy – Ransom – Informant's son has been abducted and as per the newspaper report, a ransom of Rs.5 lakhs had been demanded – Personal witnesses are not the witnesses to the facts and circumstances of the case – From the evidence of victim, Court finds that he has remained consistent with his narration of the facts and circumstances of the case relating to his abduction from Muzaffarpur till his escape from the clutches of the abductors – He was kept in the house of this appellant for ten days so he knew that who were the other members of the family of the appellant residing there in the house – Defence has not mustered enough courage to dispute the statement of victim that in the house of this appellant one another and appellant their mother, sister, younger brother and one person were residing – One of the essential ingredients to bring home an offence under Section 364A IPC would be proof of fact that the person kidnapped or abducted must have a reasonable apprehension that he may be put to death or hurt in order to compel him or his family to pay a ransom – In examination-in-chief, informant has stated that the ransom was demanded on the mobile phone of his son-in-law but he did not remember the mobile number – However, in his cross-examination, he has not only stated that no demand of ransom was made from him, he has gone ahead to say that he did not remember as to who was the person who had given a call for ransom to him and by which number – During investigation, the mobile phone of son in law or that of the abductors have not been seized and no forensic test has been conducted to prove the fact that any call was made by any one of the abductors on the mobile phone of son-in-law – It is also evident that police had suspicion upon son-in-law and he was also subjected to interrogation after detaining him in the police station – There being no evidence of the demand of ransom either from informant or victim and declare that the offences under Section 364A IPC would not be made out – Prosecution has been able to prove the involvement of this appellant in abduction of victim and his confinement in the house of this appellant, therefore, the offences punishable under Section 365 IPC is made out – Prosecution has been able to prove that the victim was abducted with active participation of the appellant under a conspiracy and was confined at several places – Thus, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 365, 368 and 120B IPC are present and have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt – Prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that demand of ransom was made from informant – Victim has not stated about any demand of ransom by any of the abductors who were involved in the occurrence – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence u/s 364A IPC set aside – Offences under Sections 365, 368 and 120B IPC are duly proved beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant, therefore he is convicted for those offences – No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 120B IPC. (Paras 26 to 32)
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 04.10.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, I-cum- Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 848 of 2009 arising out of Kaji Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 247 of 2004, G.R. No. 3906 of 2004 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 368 and 120B IPC and by the impugned order, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 364A IPC and in default of payment of fine, further three months’ rigorous imprisonment. He has also been ordered to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 368 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further one month rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 120B IPC, he was not awarded any additional sentence.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution story is based on the written report dated 30.10.2004 submitted by one Ajit Kumar Trivedi (PW-5), resident of village Jatadih, P.S. Gayaghat, District-Muzaffarpur. In his written report, the informant has stated that his son Dhananjay Kumar Trivedi (PW-8) was residing in the house of Sri Ram Naresh Thakur situated at Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur on the 2nd Floor, he was pursuing his studies there. The informant came to know from the newspaper, namely, Hindustan published on 30.10.2004 that his son (PW-8) has been abducted and as per the newspaper report, a ransom of Rs.5 lakhs had been demanded. The informant has further stated that there is no place mentioned in the newspaper and after reading the newspaper, when he went to the house of his son and searched him, his co-resident students told him that his son had gone outside on 25.10.2004 at about 11:00 am with two persons and he had not returned till date. The persons with whom his son had gone were not known. The informant claimed that he tried to contact his son on his mobile number on 25.10.2004, mobile rang but the talk could not become possible. In his written report, the informant has further disclosed that a demand for money has been made from his son-in-law whose name is Sanjeev Kumar. The informant provided two mobile numbers in the written report.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Kaji Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 247 of 2004 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 364A IPC. Police took investigation of the case and upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed initially vide Charge-sheet No. 17 of 2005 dated 11.02.2005 against Rakesh Kumar Jha, Ajit Singh and Rammunan Mahto @ Munna Singh. The investigation was kept pending against others. Later on, Charge-sheet No. 7 of 2007 dated 23.01.2007 was filed against two accused persons, namely Nandji Singh and Sunil Singh @ Budha Singh (the appellant). On 08.02.2008, the charges were framed against Nandji Singh and the appellant but the records of the appellant were to split off because the appellant absented himself in course of trial.
5. On 12.08.2008, the appellant was released on bail in the light of the order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 15395 of 2008. Prior to his release on bail, prosecution had examined four witnesses. But soon thereafter from 04.09.2008, the appellant did not appear and no pairvi was made on his behalf. On 08.11.2008, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant to take him on production in this case as he was in Ara Jail in connection with Tarari P.S.
The main legal point established is the reliance on the victim's testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused in a case of abduction for ransom. The court als....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to establish essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving coercion and threat.
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
