Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, S.K.PANIGRAHI, JJ.
Imtiaz Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLA No. 785 of 2017
Decided On : 21-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Sahoo
For the Respondent: Sitikant Mishra

Insufficient evidence of threats to substantiate the charge of kidnapping under Section 364-A IPC led to the appellant's conviction being overturned.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 364-A - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted for kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment - The Court found insufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of kidnapping, specifically the use of threats to compel ransom payment - Evidence from prosecution witnesses did not indicate that the victim felt threatened and did not corroborate claims of abduction - Trial Court's conviction not sustainable and was set aside. (Paras 16-17)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was accused of kidnapping a minor girl and demanding ransom for her release. The victim returned home the next day, and evidence included phone calls and cash transactions for the ransom. The Appellant's defense claimed false implication. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the evidence did not prove the appellant's guilt under section 364-A IPC, as there was no proof of threats or compulsion to secure the ransom. (Paras 16)

Issues: The main issues included whether sufficient evidence was presented to sustain a conviction under section 364-A, particularly concerning the requisite threats associated with kidnapping. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity of establishing threats to the victim to support the charge of kidnapping for ransom, which was not substantiated in this case. (Paras 16)

Result: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. trial proceedings and witness examination (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented by the defense and prosecution (Para 7 , 8)
4. court's review of witness testimonies (Para 9 , 10)
5. analysis of evidence and prosecution's case (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. verdict and order (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th November, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, in S.T. Case No.32/16/34/54 of 07/14/15 corresponding to G.R. Case No.254 of 2007 arising out of Brajrajnagar P.S. Case No.37 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.) Jharsuguda.

By the same, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short called as 8 the IPC 9). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), in default to undergo further imprisonment for three (3) months.

2. Prosecution Case:

On 11.02.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., the minor daughter of Madhab Oram (informant-P.W.1), having left the house, did not return till late evening. The informant and other members of the family, therefore, went in search of the victim at different places and in that mission, they failed. However, on the next morning, a call from an unknown person was received by the informant (P.W.1) in his mobile phone and it was told that his minor daughter had been kidnapped. He was then asked to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand) as ransom for being delivered at Sambalpur for onward release of his minor daughter. The informant (P.W.1) then had the occasion to talk with his minor daughter, who had been put on line through the phone set for some time to speak to her father (informant-P.W.1).

The informant (P.W.1) then on 13.02.2007 around 10.30 a.m., lodged written report with the Sub-Inspector of Police (S.I.) who is in charge of the Inspector-in-Charge. He treated the same as the First Information Report (F.I.R.-Ext.1) and registering the case, took up investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigation Officer (I.O.- P.W.11) examined the informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses, sent the requisition to the Inspectors-in-Charge of Sambalpur and Ainthapalli Police Station for tracking of the phone number 0663- 293240. He also verified the telephone calls coming from the No.06645-274461 of pay-phone booth under Jharsuguda. On 14.02.2007, the I.O. (P.W.11), got the information of return of the victim to her house. On that day, he re-examined the informant (P.W.1), who happens to be the father of the victim and also examined the victim (P.W.6). The motorcycle bearing registration No.OR-15-5440 belonging to the accused said to have been used in carrying the victim was seized under seizure list (Ext.5) and so also cash of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) from the house of the accused under seizure list Ext.6,w which was paid for getting the victim released. One Nokia mobile phone set was seized from the possession of this accused under seizure list (Ext.4). The accused then was apprehended along with one Md. Sk. Ishrar Alam and they were forwarded in custody to Court on 16.02.2007. The victim (P.W.6), in course of investigation, was also medically examined. On completion of the investigation, the Final Form was submitted placing this accused with other accused Md. Sk. Ishrar Alam to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 364-A of the IPC .

4. On receipt of the above Final Form, learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge against this accused as the presence of other accused Md. Sk. Ishrar Alam could not be secured at su