Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Ram Narain – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bihaan Pandey, learned counsel for appellant no.2; Sri Jitendra Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for appellant no.3; Sri Bhriguram Ji Pandey, learned counsel for appellant no.5; Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant no.4 and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 21.08.1984 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1982 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Narain and 11 others), whereby all the appellants herein were convicted for the offence under Section 365 I.P.C. During the pendency of the instant appeal the appellant no.1, namely Ram Narain, died and his appeal was abated vide order dated 19.02.2018.
3. The brief facts in the instant case are that on 09.06.1981 at 2:30 PM, the informant Raja Ram lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi, stating therein the informant and his son Govind Ram was implicated in a case of murder and were arrested. On 04.06.1981, the informant Raja Ram was released from the jai
To convict under Section 365 IPC, proof of wrongful confinement and abduction must be established; absence of victim's recovery negates conviction.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 365 IPC, emphasizing the importance of prompt FIRs and the admissibility of portions of hostile witness testimonies.
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.
Prosecution must prove intent for kidnapping under Section 366 IPC; mere abduction insufficient for conviction, especially when delays and contradictions in victim's testimony exist.
The court ruled that without evidence of force or deceitful means, the conviction under Section 364 IPC could not stand.
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
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
