Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAD AT RANHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Binod Singh, S/o Late Marachhu Singh - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) 0.499 of 2016
with
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.503 of 2016
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Kidnapping for Ransom - Indian Penal Code - Section 364-A - 384, 386, 364-A, 324, 307/34, 27 of the Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the abduction of two individuals for ransom, resulting in the survival of one and the death of the other. The accused demanded a ransom of Rupees Twenty Lacs and assaulted the victims, leading to a trial under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of abduction for ransom, assault, and possession of arms, based on the testimony of the surviving victim and corroborative evidence from other witnesses. The court also noted the lack of direct evidence to confirm the ransom call but deemed the victim's testimony as sufficient for conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the victim's testimony, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, and the involvement of the accused in the abduction, assault, and ransom demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also emphasized the continuing nature of the offence of abduction and the requirement for physical presence at the scene for joint criminal liability under section 34 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed one appeal, set aside certain convictions, and dismissed another appeal, ultimately convicting the accused under section 364-A/34 IPC and other relevant sections, while acquitting them of other charges.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This case is about abduction of two persons for ransom - one has survived the murderous assault and the other one is still traceless.
2. Long before, in the year 1971 the Law Commission of India made a recommendation for making kidnapping or abduction for ransom an aggravated form of the offence of kidnapping for ransom which was punishable with rigorous imprisonment upto 14 years and fine. The Parliament has shown considerable concern in dealing with the offence of kidnapping for ransom. By Act of 42 of 1993, section 364-A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code with effect from 22.05.1993 which has provided punishment of death. The death penalty is retained in the penal Statutes in very few countries in the world - India is one. There are 14 offences in the Indian Penal Code which are made punishable by death and as an alternative thereto imprisonment for life. The death penalty provided under section 364-A is remarkable in the sense that even in a case where the kidnapping has not resulted in the death of the victim the Courts for "special reasons" can award death penalty upon the accused. In "Vikram Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 9 5CC 502" the Hon'ble supreme Court has observed that the instances of kidnapping for ransom must be dealt with in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on the Courts as well.
3. Six persons are said to have abducted Ravindra Kumar Singh @ Chhotu and Roshan Singh for ransom on 04.07.2010. Ravindra Kumar Singh who was running a stone crusher in village Badiha left home on 04.07.2010 with his nephew Roshan Singh for Manatu where Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay had called him to provide labourers. Praveen Kumar Singh who is the brother of Ravindra Kumar Singh has stated in his fardbeyan which was recorded at 14:30 hrs. on 06.07.2010 at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chhatarpur that the accused persons had confined Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh in the forest adjoining Manatu- Chak Road and Rupees Twenty Lacs was demanded in ransom. On the same night at about 09:00 PM, Ravindra Kumar Singh called Babuwa Jee and asked him to pay ransom to the abductors for their release. Text day, Babuwa Jee asked his Munshi to pay Rs.20,000/- to Binod Singh who payment of ransom money assured that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh would be released. However, they were not set free and on further enquiry Binod Singh gave three mobile numbers being 9798111590, 8009908381 and 9471752769 and asked to talk about their release. Raj Kumar Singh answered the call of Pappu Pandit on mobile no. 9471752769 and told him that he was not involved in the occurrence and the next day around 11:00 AM a call came that Ravindra Kumar Singh was lying injured near Dagra Pahari. The informant along with Vikash Kumar Singh, Pappu Singh, Ranjit Singh and Anjan Singh immediately left for Dagra and with the help of local people his brother was brought to the village, where he narrated the entire story to him. The informant has further stated that his injured brother had disclosed name of the other accused persons, who in course of their talks were addressing each other by their name. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Praveen Kumar Singh, Naudiha Bazar P.S Case No.18 of 2010 was registered against Binod Kumar Singh, Uday Singh @ Birendra Singh, Bishundeo Singh, Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay, Raju and Tufani under section 384, 386, 364-A, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and section 27 of the Arms Act. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against Binod Kumar Singh, day Singh, Bishundeo Singh and Raj Kumar Singh who have faced the trial in Session Trial Case No.383 of 2011 on the charge under sections 384/34, 386/34, 364-A/34, 307/34 and 324/34 IPC as also under section 27 of the Arms Act, by the same order dated 04.10.2012.
4. In Session Trial Case No.383 of 2011, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses - PW-8, Ravindra Kumar Singh is the injured eyewitness. Dr. Rajesh Agar
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
