Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ramesh Sinha, Vinod Kumar Srivastava-III, JJ.
Mintu Singh @ Dhirendra Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2005.
Decided On : 14-06-2016
Kidnapping - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 363, Section 364-A - The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 363 IPC. However, the court converted the conviction and sentence of the accused from Section 364-A IPC to Section 364 IPC based on lack of evidence for ransom demand.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping of a young girl for ransom. The accused were convicted under Section 363 IPC and Section 364-A IPC. The accused appealed against the conviction and sentence under Section 364-A IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 363 IPC but converted the conviction and sentence from Section 364-A IPC to Section 364 IPC due to lack of evidence for ransom demand.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the demand for ransom, as required for conviction under Section 364-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was no reliable evidence to prove the demand for ransom, leading to the conversion of the conviction and sentence from Section 364-A IPC to Section 364 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 363 IPC and converting the conviction and sentence from Section 364-A IPC to Section 364 IPC.
Vinod Kumar Srivastava-III, J. –
Both the connected appeals are arised out of the same judgment and order,therefore, both the appeals are being decided by a common judgement.
2. These appeals have been filed against the judgement and order dated 21.2.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), District Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2003 (State v. Amit Kumar Singh and another), whereby learned trial court has convicted the appellants Amit Kumar Singh and Mintu Singh @ Dhirendra Pratap Singh for the offence under section 363 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and sentenced each appellants to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine one year additional imprisonment and further convicted and sentenced under section 364-A, I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine one year additional imprisonment. However all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Brief Facts
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 13.2.2002 complainant Vinay Kumar Singh lodged a missing report Ex-Ka-4 with the police station Paraspur, District Gonda regarding his daughter Km. Shakshi Singh aged about ten years, who was student of Saraswati Sishu Mandir Paraspur. Thereafter on 19.2.2002 complainant Vinay Kumar Singh gave a written information Ex-Ka-1 to the Station Officer, P.S. Paraspur District Gonda stating therein that on 13.2.2002 Km. Harshita and Km. Sirshti of his family, who had also gone with Km. Shakshi Singh to the school have told that Km. Shakshi Singh had left the school on call of Amit Kumar Singh and gone with Amit Kumar Singh and Mintu Singh @ Dhirendra Pratap Singh. Amit Kumar Singh is the son of his brother-in-law (Sharu). On 14.2.2002 his brother-in-law (Sala) Jagdish Singh resident of Jagdishpur District Sultanpur told him on telephone that he has received a telephonic call from unknown person from Lucknow, who has told that Km. Shakshi Singh is in his custody and has demanded Rs. 3,50,000/- otherwise he has threatened to kill her. It is further stated that Amit Kumar Singh and Mintu Singh @ Dhirendra Pratap Singh have kidnapped her daughter for ransom, therefore, necessary action be taken.
4. On the basis of written information Ex-Ka-1 of the complainant Vinay Kumar Singh an entry was made in G.D. dated 19.2.2002 at Rapat no. 12, Ex-Ka-5 and case was registered at case crime no. 46 of 2002 under Sections 364-A, 363, 366 I.P.C. and investigation started.
5. It further appears from the record that on 20.2.2002 some persons namely Chandra Prakash Singh, Suyra Bali Singh, Rana Pratap Singh, Satish Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh and Satya Dev Singh caught the accused Amit Kumar Singh and Mintu Singh @ Dhirendra Pratap Singh and brought them to the police station Paraspur and Chandra Prakash recovered a nose pin of abdcutee Km. Shakshi Singh from the pocket of the coat of accused Amit Kumar Singh, regarding which recovery memo Ex-Ka-2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer. During the investigation both the accused persons were taken into police custody remand on 2.3.2002 by the Investigating Officer and on their pointing out Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex-ka-7 regarding place of hide out, where the abdcutee Km. Shakshi Singh was kept and also prepared site plan Ex-Ka-8 in respect of place from where abductee was thrown into the river Gomti by the accused persons. The Investigating Officer also obtained receipt of telephone bills from various P.C.Os from where accused-persons used to call for ransom and prepared Fard Ex-Ka-9, Ka-10 and Ka-11. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer Parsuram Dhoare (P.W.9) submitted charge sheet Ex-Ka 12 against both the accused appellants.
6. After committal proceedings, charges were framed against the accused-appellants Amit Kumar Singh and Mintu Singh @ Dhirendra Pratap Si
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
