IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Lalit Kumar and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. – 2162, 2127, 2161 of 2015
Decided On : 22-03-2024
JUDGMENT :
Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
1. These three appeals are arising out of the common judgement and orders dated 05.05.2015 and 07.05.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Lalit Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 820 of 2011 under Section 364A I.P.C. and Sessions Trial No. 363 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 820 of 2011 under Section 364A (State vs. Qayyum) and Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2012 (State vs. Lalit Kumar and Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 1190 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 I.P.C. and Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2012 (State vs. Lalit Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 1191 of 2011 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Pappu) arising out of Case Crime No. 1192 of 2011 under Section 25 of Arms Act, Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Raj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 1193 of 2011 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sessions Trial No. 295 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Kanhaiya) arising out of Case Crime No. 1194 of 2011 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sessions Trial 296 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Iqbal) arising out of Case Crime No. 1195 of 2012 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2012 (State vs. Shivram @ vijju) arising out of Case Crime No. 1196 of 2011 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, whereby all the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 364A, 147, 148, 307 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced under Section 364A IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, under Section 147 I.P.C., imprisonment for two years, under Section 148 imprisonment for three years, under Section 307/149 imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/- and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, imprisonment for of three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for three years as provided.
2. The brief facts of the leading case in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2012 are that PW-1, Amit Jain, had lodged a first information report on 18.10.2011 at 8:05 A.M., stating that his son, Parshva Jain, who was studying in Class II, in Diwan Public School had been abducted. He had stated that as usual on 18.10.2011, in the morning at 7:30 A.M, the guard of the informant, namely Anand, had started from the informant's house to drop Parshva Jain, son of the informant, to the school. While the guard and his son were on their way to the school, from one Scorpio car, of white and gray colour, which was parked nearby, three persons came out while the driver was still occupying the driving seat, keeping the vehicle's engine on of the three persons one person caught hold of Anand from behind and two persons snatched Parshva Jain from him and put parshva in the Scorpio car and left towards Meerut. The guard made a hue and cry and tried to follow the car but could not succeed. He could not note the vehicle number. The said boy, Parshva Jain, was wearing a school dress of blue colour half shirt, grey colour nicker and black shoes. The guard informed the informant about the incident and thereafter he had lodged the F.I.R. After registration of the F.I.R. against the four unknown accused persons on 22.10.2011, the police had recovered the kidnapped child during an encounter wherein, out of the eight persons, six were apprehended. With regard to the encounter and recovery of the kidnapped child, another Case Crime No. 1190 of 2011 was registered against all the accused persons.
3. The facts of the Case Crime No. 1190 of 2011 were that on 22.10.2011, the Inspector- Sri Anil Kaparwan, incharge of the Special Operation Group(SOG), got an information from a reliable source and through surveillance that the accused persons of Case Crime No. 820 of 2011 were hiding themselves alongwith the kidnapped child in the Dastoi Forest and due to the fear and pressure created by the police, th
Netra Pal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Malleshi v. State of Karnataka
Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana
The prosecution must prove threats to cause death or hurt for a conviction under Section 364A IPC; failure to do so leads to a conviction under Section 365 IPC for wrongful confinement.
Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A requires proof of abduction and threats of death or harm, which was established in this case.
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 judgment establishes the importance of witness identification, corroborating evidence, and the interpretation of legal provisions in establishing guilt and upholding convictions in criminal cases....
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
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.