IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, CJ., NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Indra Pal and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 8080, 8477 of 2008
Decided On : 25-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and background facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of charges and prosecution evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. witness testimonies supporting the prosecution (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. defensive testimonies of defendants (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. arguments from both sides regarding evidence (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. identifications of accused and conditions of the fir (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. legal standards related to attempted murder (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. modification of conviction from section 364a to 365 (Para 72 , 74 , 76) |
| 9. final ruling and conclusion of the court (Para 78) |
JUDGMENT :
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Since these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and relate to same Crime Number, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The Special Judge (DAA) / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Etah by judgment and order dated 22.11.2008 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1998 (Crime No. 346 of 1997), P.S. Soron, District Etah convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 364A I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved with the said judgment, present appeals have been preferred by the appellants.
3. Brief facts, as culled out from the record, are that a First Information Report was lodged by the informant, Chandra Pal son of Roopram, resident of Badanpur, Police Station Soron, District Etah, on 22.11.1997 at 2.45 p.m., with the averments that in the night of 21/22.11.1997, as usual, he was sleeping inside his shop and his wife Prema Devi was sleeping in the shed with the kids and nearby his children were also sleeping on different cots. At about 12.00 p.m. when the wife of the informant made noise that miscreants had come, he came out unlocking the shop. Six seven miscreants came and took his 11 years old son Rajesh. On raising alarm by the informant and his wife, his neighbors also came there. When everyone tried to rescue the boy from the miscreants, they fired with guns and went towards south with the boy. Jabar Singh son of Siya Ram Jatav received gunshot injury in the occurrence.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, on 22.11.1997 F.I.R. was lodged against 6-7 unknown miscreants for the offence under Sections 364 and 307 I.P.C. Investigating Officer started investigation and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan. Injured Jabar Singh was medically examined on the same day at the Community Health Centre, Soron, Etah. During the course of investigation, on the basis of an information dated 4.12.1997, the Investigating Officer with other police personnel, reached Badanpur where the informant Chandrapal met and handed over a letter regarding demand of ransom of Rs.70,000/- in respect of the kidnapped boy. When the police personnel alongwith the informant and other persons, with a view to search out the kidnapped boy, reached the old brick kiln before the village Goyti, information was received that in the house of Pusey son of Sonpal Kashyap, the kidnapped boy alongwith the kidnappers are present. On the basis of the said information, the police personnel alongwith informer and other persons, reached at village Chauraghat and when on the tip of the informer, reached the corner of the western wall of the house of Pusey Kashyap, it was seen that six persons, armed with gun and tamancha, were sitting on the north face of the roof (kotha) and when they saw the police personnel, they fired 5-6 shots with intention to kill them. In their defence, the police personnel also fired upon them and by using necessary force, two miscreants were caught by surrounding them in front of
Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and another
Susanta Das vs. State of Orissa
Shivaji Sahab Rao vs. State of Maharashtra
Netra Pal vs. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi)
Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telangana
Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A requires proof of abduction and threats of death or harm, which was established in this case.
The prosecution's failure to establish the fundamental elements of kidnapping and ransom resulted in the High Court overturning the convictions due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
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 reaso....
The prosecution must prove both kidnapping and a ransom demand for conviction under Section 364-A; failure to do so warrants only convictions under lesser charges.
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes the importance of witness identification, corroborating evidence, and the interpretation of legal provisions in establishing guilt and upholding convictions in criminal cases....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.