Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D.M. VYAS, JJ.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Dhavnik Dilipkumar Shah and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2013
Decided On : 09-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bhargav Pandya
For the Respondent: Murali N. Devnani
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; in this case, insufficient evidence led to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 364A, 365, and 120B - The appeal challenges the acquittal of accused charged with kidnapping a minor for ransom. The prosecution's case lacked credible evidence, as vital links were missing in the testimony and supporting materials. (Paras 2.1-2.11)
(B) Criminal procedure - Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's acquittal is upheld as the prosecution failed to meet this standard. (Paras 6-11)
Facts of the case:
A minor was allegedly kidnapped by relatives for ransom, leading to an FIR filed against multiple accused. The prosecution's evidence included witness testimonies and phone call allegations.
Findings of Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in testimonies.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused parties in the kidnapping and ransom case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the absence of conclusive evidence led to the trial court’s proper acquittal decision.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal of accused. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts surrounding the kidnapping case. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments on insufficiency of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; trial court's acquittal upheld. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2012 rendered in Sessions Case No.142 of 2012 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, whereby the respondents herein, who are accused nos.1 to 4 in the said case, were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 364A, 365 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short “the IPC”)
2. Brief overview of the facts of the prosecution case, may be stated as follows:-
2.1 It is a case of kidnap for ransom. The boy, said to have been kidnapped by the accused, is a minor aged about 5 years. Accused no.4 is the niece of PW-1, who is the father of the minor boy. It is stated that on 25.10.2011, accused no.4, who is the niece of PW-1 has allured the minor son of PW-1 stating that he will take him out and accordingly, has taken the minor boy at about 7:00 p.m. on that day from the lawful custody and guardianship of PW-1. Thereafter, they did not return to the house. So, PW-1 lodged a report with the police on the night of 25.10.2011 at about 10:30 p.m. Police registered the said report as an FIR for the aforesaid offences.
2.2 Sometime, thereafter PW-1 received a phone call stating that his son was kidnapped and the person, who called him over phone demanded Rs.1 crore towards ransom to give back the custody of the minor boy to PW-1. There were negotiations between PW-1 and the persons who called him over phone and ultimately, it was agreed that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to be paid to return the custody of the minor boy.
2.3 It is stated that they asked PW-1 to come near to Karnavati Club and pay the ransom. The said fact was informed by PW-1 to the Police. So, police laid a trap. On the next day morning, at about 4:15 a.m., on 26.10.2011, PW-1 went near to Karnavati Club and he noticed accused nos.1, 2 and 4 present in the car at that place and accused no.2 collected black bag from PW-1 containing currency notes of Rs.25,00,000/- towards ransom. But, PW-1 did not find his minor son with them at that time. It is stated that while accused no.2 was receiving the bag with cash from PW-1 that PW-6, who is the Investigating Officer caught him red handed while receiving the ransom in the presence of the mediators examined as PW-3 and PW-4. Accused nos.1 and 4 were also arrested at that time in the presence of the said mediators.
2.4 Thereafter, PW-7, who is the Police Officer in the investigation team, came to know that the boy was hidden in the office at Wall Street, part-2 Building bearing office nos.707 and 708. Accordingly, they reached the said office along with the mediator PW-5. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.3 was available in the said office and the minor boy, who was kidnapped, was with him in the said office. So, accused no.3 was arrested in the presence of the mediator PW-5. Thereafter, accused nos.1 to 4 were shown as accused in this case as the culprits, who have committed the offence of kidnap of the minor boy, who is the son of PW-1. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 364A, 365 and 120B of the IPC.
2.5 The trial court framed charges under Sections 363 , 364A, 365 and 120B of the IPC against accused nos.1 to 4. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
2.6 In the trial that has taken place in the trial court, prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 9 witnesses and got marked 10 exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
2.7 At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found th
