Back
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Mohd. Yunus – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sri Alok Kumar Verma, J.
All these six appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 07.09.2013/10.09.2013, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 2007, ‘State vs. Mohd. Yunus and 11 Others’, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 364A of IPC, and, in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months, and, they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, and, in default of payment of fine, they have been further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. These six Appeals are connected appeals, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. File of Criminal Appeal No.378 of 2013 will be leading file.
3. The prosecution case in brief is, that the informant Ram Saran Verma (PW1) had lodged an FIR (Ext.Ka11) through his written
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the intent to confine a person secretly and wrongfully for the offense under IPC 365.
The prosecution must prove all elements of kidnapping for ransom, including demand for ransom and threats to life, to sustain a conviction under Section 364-A IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the essential ingredients required for the offence under section 364-A of IPC, as provided by the Supreme Court, and the appl....
The ingredients of Section 364A IPC and the principles governing the proof of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A requires proof of abduction and threats of death or harm, which was established in this case.
Kidnapping for ransom – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where prosecution has failed to prove conditions together as envisaged under Section 364-A, IPC.
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....
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
