Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Murari Rai son of Baldev Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing under ipc 363 (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on insufficient evidence and acquittals (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. acquittal of others justified due to lack of evidence. (Para 8 , 15) |
| 4. elements of offense under ipc 366a not proven (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. upheld conviction under ipc 363 (Para 14 , 16) |
| 6. modification of sentence and dismissal of appeal (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for appellants Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mrs. Vandana Bharti.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2006 is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2006 and 03.03.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Deoghar (hereinafter call it as impugned order), whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for committing offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.5000/- each with default stipulation.
3. Against the same judgment, Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2006 has also been preferred by the informant which was admitted for hea
Conviction under Section 363 for kidnapping established, while acquittal under Sections 366A and 120B upheld due to lack of evidence for conspiracy and illicit intent.
The conviction for rape was upheld based on consistent victim testimony, while the conviction for kidnapping was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and consistent evidence to establish the elements of a criminal offense, particularly regarding the age of the victim ....
The conviction under Section 366-A was set aside for insufficient intent, affirming that taking a minor from guardianship constitutes kidnapping under Section 363 irrespective of consent.
Conviction under Section 366A IPC requires proven inducement and intent for illicit intercourse, which were not established in this case.
Point of Law : Taking into consideration of these aspects on evidence and in absence of any documentary evidence, it can safely be said that on the date of alleged occurrence, the victim girl (PW-2) ....
(1) Mere recovery of a child from some other person ipso facto does not to prove offence under Section 363, IPC – Prosecution has to prove that accused either took or enticed minor out of keeping of ....
Victim's testimony is paramount in sexual assault cases; absence of consent is established despite claims of the victim's age affecting the offence's classification.
Consent of victims negated charges under IPC Sections 366A and 376, as they were of legal age and had prior relationships with the appellants.
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
