Back
2025 Supreme(Chh) 371
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Ravindra Krishna Dewangan, Son Of Krishna Dewangan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohan Nagar – Respondent
CRA No. 1585 of 2019, CRA No. 1981 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2025
For the Appellants :Mr. Shailendra Dubey with Ms. Shivali Dubey and Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G.
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for kidnapping and robbery, emphasizing the credibility of victim identification despite concerns over Test Identification Parade procedures.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364A/34, 392/34, and 120B - Conviction for kidnapping for ransom - Each appellant received life imprisonment and fines for their roles in kidnapping and robbery - Confession statements led to the recovery of cash and gold ornaments from the appellants - Court highlighted the importance of identification by the victim. (Paras 1-6, 8, 9, 28)
(B) Evidence - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Concerns raised over validity due to prior media exposure of accused - Court emphasized that proper identification by the victim in a multi-hour encounter cannot be dismissed easily. (Paras 10-14)
Facts of the case:
The accused kidnapped Amit Goyal, demanding a ransom of Rs.10 lacs, after he showed them a house for sale. The prosecution's case was supported by eyewitness accounts and recovery of stolen items. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants after evaluating the evidence, including victim identification and the confession of the accused relating to the crime. (Paras 28, 29)
Issues: Legality of TIP, admissibility of confessions, sufficiency of evidence to prove robbery and kidnapping. (Paras 5, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that identification of the accused by the victim was credible despite concerns over media exposure, and confessions inferred guilt, substantiating the criminal conspiracy and charges laid. (Paras 28, 30)
Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing details of the appellants. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's examination of evidence and witness credibility. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. establishment of guilt based on evidence. (Para 28) |
| 4. final dismissal of appeals. (Para 29 , 30) |
Judgment :
Rajani Dubey, J.
1. Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.10.2019 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No.7/2016, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 364A/34 of IPC. | Life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer additional RI for two months. |
| Under Section 392/34 of IPC. | RI for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer additional RI for one month. |
| Under Section 120B of IPC. | Life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer additional RI for two months. |
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.7.2015 complainant Ashish Goyal lodged a report at Police Station Mohan Nagar to the effect that he resides at Kadambari Nagar and engaged in manufacturing of fly-ash bricks. He along with his brother Amit Goyal got a house constructed on their private land at Borsi and for the purpose of selling the said house, they gave advertisement in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper. On 12.7.2015 his brother Amit Goyal received a call on his mobile and the caller told him that he is from Raipur and wants to see the said house. On 13.7.2015 at about 1.15 pm his brother Amit Goyal received a call that they have come from Raipur and are waiting in front of Railway Station, Durg in a swift car. Thereafter, Amit Goyal left for Green Chowk near railway station in his car Maruti Ritz. However, at 3.36 pm the complainant received a call from the mobile of his brother Amit Goyal that his brother has been kidnapped and was asked to make arrangement of Rs.10 lacs within 1-2 hours or else his brother would be killed. Based on the said report, FIR (Ex.P/2) under Crime No.282/2015 was registered.
Thereafter, the complainant and his uncle arranged ransom and at about 10.30 pm as per directions of the accused put the money bag under a board at Indraprastha colony and reached Supela Chowk, Bhilai. At around 11 pm Amit Goyal called the complainant and told that the kidnappers have left him at Urla-Raipur road. Thereafter, Vivek Goyal and Vaibhav Goyal reached the indicated place and took him back to his house. During investigation, spot map Ex.P/30 was prepared and statements of the complainant Ashish Goyal, Amit Goyal and other witnesses were recorded. Against the accused/appellants Crime No.174/2015 was also registered at Police Station Kumhari and during the course of investigation, they were taken into custody and in their memorandum statements they confessed abduction of Amit Goyal for ransom. On search being made at the house of the accused persons in Nagpur on 29.9.2015, cash amount of Rs.6.50 lacs, gold bracelet, gold ring and visiting cards were recovered. The kidnapped person duly identified the accused persons in TIP conducted on 1.10.2015 by the Executive Magistrate. This apart, the kidnapped person also duly identified the gold articles in the TIP conducted on 3.10.2015. After completion of whole investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 364A/34, 392/34 and 120B of IPC against the accused which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by them in their defence.
