Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Ram Sajeewan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants, Ram Sajeewan and Smt. Kevala, against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, District Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 793 of 1998 in Case Crime No. 1995, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli, convicting the appellants under Section 363 IPC to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 366 IPC 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that there is a house of appellant-Ram Sajeevan in front of informant house, wherein brother-in- law of Ram Sajeevan, namely, Budhai was living from one and half month and he often used to go in the house of informant. On 11.02.1995 at about 06:00 to 07:00 p.m. on the behest of the appellants Ram Sajeevan and his wife Smt. Kevala, Budhai, who is brother-in-law of Ram Sajeevan, entic
The court maintained the conviction for kidnapping and abduction under IPC sections, granting probation to the elderly appellants, fulfilling justice despite the conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act and the discretion of the court to provide the benefit of probation based on the nature of the of....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the victim's age and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of alleged kidnapping and rape.
Charge of gang rape has to be established with convincing evidence.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused kidnapped the victim with the intent to compel her to marry or to seduce her to illicit intercourse, and mere allegations without....
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.
(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 ....
The conviction for abduction was upheld, emphasizing the importance of official records in determining the victim's age, and highlighting that consensual relationships may not constitute offenses if ....
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
