Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Goutam Bhaduri, Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.
Devendra Dewangan @ Chhotu @Bau, S/o Gendram Dewangan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Basatpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 486 of 2020
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. - Conviction and Sentencing under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Arms Act - Section 364-A, 363, 364, 368, 25(1) of Arms Act - The judgment discusses the legality, validity, and propriety of the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under the mentioned sections. The court analyzes the evidence, witness statements, and legal provisions to establish the guilt of the appellants and dismisses the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, abducted a 15-year-old victim, wrongfully confined him, and demanded ransom. The victim was rescued by the police, and the appellants were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on the statements of the victim and witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of incriminating items. The court rejected the defense's arguments of contradictions and omissions in the witness statements and upheld the conviction and sentencing.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality, validity, and propriety of the conviction and sentencing, including the sufficiency of evidence, witness credibility, and interpretation of legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's identification of the appellants, corroborating witness statements, medical evidence, and the recovery of incriminating items to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also interpreted the legal provisions related to kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and demanding ransom to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act.
JUDGMENT :
Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellants have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2020 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. No.20/2018, whereby and whereunder the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 363 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code | Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months |
| Under Section 364 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code | Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months |
| Under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code | Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months |
| Under Section 368 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code | Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. |
| Under Section 25(1-<font face="Kruti Dev 011"> [k </font>)(<font face="K11"> [k </font>) of Arms Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. |
(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.02.2018 in between 5:30 pm to 10:00 pm at Rajiv Nagar, Basantpur, present appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, abducted the victim- Nishant, aged about 15 years, from lawful guardianship, wrongfully confined him in an abandoned place and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from PW-2 Nilesh Choubey as ransom on the threat of causing death of the victim and also kept sharp edged knives without having a valid licence and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Further case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2018, PW-2 Nilesh Choubey lodged a missing report at Police Station Basantpur alleging therein that at about 5:30 pm, his nephew (victim) went to Pioneer Coaching Center situated at Anupam Chowk, Rajnandgaon and did not return to home till 10:00 pm. When he inquired about the victim from the Director of the coaching center namely Laxman Singh Sahu, he told him (PW-2) that at 6:45 pm, victim- Nishant left for his home. Then he inquired about the victim from his relatives over phone, but he did not get any information from them. On the report of PW-2 Nilesh Choubey, FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered against the unknown persons on the same day. During investigation, In-charge of Police Station, Basantpur got the information that some police personnel are chasing one Eco Maruti Van in Pulgaon Arjunda nearby Cheecha Village. Thereafter, police personnel along with PW-2 Nilesh Choubey and PW-7 Nohit Kumar Dewangan reached there and appellants namely Devendra Dewangan and Mojesh @ Monti Dewangan were nabbed by the police personnel. Thereafter, upon inquiry by the police, appellants Devendra Dewangan and Mojesh Dewangan disclosed the fact that they kidnapped the victim- Nishant with the help of other appellants namely Bhisham and Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare and confined him in a rented house situated at Risali, Bhilai. Thereafter, appellants were taken into custody vide Exs.P-13, 14, 15 & 16 respectively and victim- Nishant was rescued from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-1. Memorandum statement of the appellant- Devendra Dewangan was recorded vide Ex.P-5, pursuant to which, maruti van having two numbers, one in front side showing No. CG04-HC-1830 and another from back side showing No.CG04-HC-1880, one mobile, SIM bearing registration Nos.9993359659 & 7898766114 and o
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....
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 court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
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.
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
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
