Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J.
Amardas Mahant S/o Surti Das Mahant - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1790 of 2024, CRA No. 1869 of 2024, CRA No. 235 of 2025
Decided On : 18-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and convictions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of kidnapping incident and investigation (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. witness testimonies confirming kidnapping (Para 7 , 20) |
| 4. trial court proceedings and witness statements (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's analysis and evaluation of evidence (Para 10 , 13) |
| 6. appellants' defense arguments (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. legal definitions and implications of kidnapping (Para 26 , 28) |
| 8. legal tests for convictions under ipc sections (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. final judgments and sentences pronounced (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. order for certified copy and appeal information (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Singh, CJ.
1. Since all these appeals are arising out of same crime number, same sessions trial, and by a common judgment, therefore, these appeals are have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment.
2. It is an admitted fact that there were four accused persons, namely Khilawan Das Mahant alias Nikhil, Amardas Mahant, Sanjay Sidar and Pritam Das Mahant. By the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2024, accused Pritam Das Mahant has been acquitted for the charges levelled against him.
3. CRA No.1790/2024 has been filed by Amardas Mahant, CRA No.1869/2024 has been filed by Sanjay Sidar and CRA No.235/2025 has been filed by Khilawan Das Mahant alias Nikhil against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2024 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.71/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
A ppellant – Khilawan Das Mahant alias Nikhil
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s 363 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| U/s 364-A/34 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| U/s 368/34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| U/s 120B of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. | |
Appellant – Amardas Mahant Conviction Sentence
| U/s 363/34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| U/s 364-A/34 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| U/s 368/34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. | |
Appellant – Sanjay Sidar
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s 363/34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| U/s 364-A/34 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| U/s 368/34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. |
| All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. | |
4. The facts, as unfolded during the course of investigation and prosecution, are that the complainant Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, a resident of Chhapriganj, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.), had earlier employed Khilawan Das Mahant alias Nikhil Kumar Mahant as a cook in his household. The services of the said accused had been discontinued on 18.02.2021 when his work was no longer required. On the date of the incident, i.e., 20.02.2021 at about 5:30 PM, accused Khilawan Das Mahant alias Nikhi
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.
Kidnapping for ransom – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where prosecution has failed to prove conditions together as envisaged under Section 364-A, IPC.
Kidnapping for ransom – Unless all conditions as enumerated in Section 364A of IPC are fulfilled, no conviction can be recorded.
Supreme Court has wide power to alter charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. whilst not causing prejudice to accused.
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for admissible evidence to prove the essential elements of criminal offences, emphasizing the importance of meeting the evidentiary....
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.
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
