SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Mahendra Bhuian Son of Sammal @ Shyamalal Bhuian - Appellant
Versus
The State Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1768 of 2017, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1744 of 2017
Decided on : 14-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arwind Kumar Kumar, Mr. Lukesh Kumar,
For the Respondent: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
The essential ingredients for a conviction under Section 364-A IPC include proof of kidnapping, a demand for ransom, and a threat to the victim's life, all of which must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

[KIDNAPPING] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] - [IPC Sections 361, 362, 363, 364, 364-A] - [The court analyzed the essential ingredients of Section 364-A of the IPC, which requires proof of kidnapping or abduction, a threat to cause death or hurt, and a demand for ransom. The court emphasized that both the demand for ransom and the threat must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove these elements, particularly due to the lack of credible evidence regarding the ransom demand and the belated Test Identification Parade (TIP), which undermined the reliability of witness identifications. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence.]

Fact of the Case:

The informant was kidnapped on 14.07.2012 by three miscreants who demanded a ransom of Rs.10,00,000. After being held captive for several days, he was released upon payment of Rs.1,00,000. The informant later identified the accused in a TIP, leading to their conviction under Section 364-A of the IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish the elements required for a conviction under Section 364-A IPC, particularly the demand for ransom and the threat to the victim's life. The TIP was conducted after a significant delay, raising doubts about its reliability. The court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to uphold the conviction.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the essential elements of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A IPC, including the demand for ransom and the threat to the victim's life.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to convict under Section 364-A IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused kidnapped the victim, made a demand for ransom, and threatened the victim's life. The failure to establish these elements led to the quashing of the conviction.

Final Decision: The court quashed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, allowing the appeals and discharging the accused from criminal liability.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Both the appeals since arisen out of common judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2017, hence, these appeals have been directed to be heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.

2. The instant appeals, filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in S.T. Case No.48 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 364-A of the IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, they have further been directed to undergo imprisonment for nine months.

3. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of prosecution case, as per the written report of the informant, which reads as under:

4. As per the written report of the informant dated 18.07.2012, the prosecution story in brief is that on 14.07.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., the informant was sitting at his shop situated beside Jogiyara road, where three unknown miscreants wearing t-shirt and shirt came and demanded mixture and biscuit which was packed by the informant. It is alleged that thereafter two of the miscreants took out pistols and asked him to accompany them since their commander was calling him. All of them proceeded on foot towards the western side, near river Amjhar, where four persons were present. It is alleged that all of them took the informant towards the southern side of the forest and crossed Pratappur Jori road and moved further in southern side of the forest. At about 12.30 in the night, they stopped beneath a tree and at about 5.30 in the morning, they started moving and reached inside the forest at about 2.00 p.m. where they stayed for some time. He has further stated that at about 9.00 p.m., they reached at village Mohanpur and ate rice and vegetable in the house of some unknown person and again came back to the forest. They also took away his MTS mobile bearing No.8434612518. He has stated that they were threatening him that if Rs.10,00,000/-was not given to them as ransom, he would kill him. Further on 17.07.2012 at about 1.30 p.m., they released him stating that they had received the money and threatened not to disclose about these facts either to the police or any other person. The informant travelled about nine kilometers in the forest and arrived at Kunda Chowk, where his family members were waiting. They disclosed that rupees one lakh was given to the kidnappers near a bridge situated at Amauna Road. The amount of Rs.98,000/-consisted of Rs.500 currency notes and remaining currency notes were of Rs.1,000/-denomination each.

5. The informant has further alleged that his sister Anita Devi was employed as para teacher in Primary School, Dhimdabar, where she was constructing the School building from the government fund allotted for the purpose. One Arun Ganjhu resident of Dhimdabar had demanded Rs.100,000/-which was refused, upon which, he had threatened that any how he would extort Rs.100,000/-from him. The informant has given detail description of apparel and physique of the accused persons and claimed that he could identify them when they are made to appear before him. He has stated that due to the aforesaid incident, he was mentally disturbed and therefore, could not lodge the case within time.

6. On the basis of written report of informant, Aashish Kr. Gupta, FIR was registered and investigation started, upon completion investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the accused persons and accordingly the learned A.C.J.M., Chatra took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 364(A) of IPC and committed the case record to the cou

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        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

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon Back to top