Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, BIBHU DATTA GURU
Ravi Khandekar S/o. Budhram Khandekar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tarbahar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1656/2024, Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1696/2024, Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1954/2024 as well as Mr. Shanshank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent.
2. Since all these criminal appeals, namely CRA No.1656/2024, CRA No.1696/2024 and CRA No.1954/2024, arise out of the same crime, they have been clubbed together, heard together, and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2024 passed by learned 3rd Additional Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.121/2022, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
4. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the investigation and trial, is that on 06.02.2022 at about 5:00 p.m., at Khudiram Bose Chowk, Deepupara Adivasi Mohalla, Tarbahar, Police Station Tarb
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.
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 judgment establishes the importance of witness identification, corroborating evidence, and the interpretation of legal provisions in establishing guilt and upholding convictions in criminal cases....
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
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 must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
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
