Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1590
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
S.K. Gangele, Rohit Arya, JJ.
Ashok - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 34-2006 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 384 and 409-2005
Decided On : 19-12-2014
For the Petitioner:Vikrant Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Prabal Solanki, Publilc Prosecutor.
The communication of ransom demand is essential to establish guilt under Section 364-A of the IPC.
Headnote:
Abduction - Indian Penal Code - Section 364-A/34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for the abduction of a student for ransom. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and documents to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of abduction based on the evidence presented. However, the court acquitted one of the accused due to insufficient evidence against him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were guilty of abduction for ransom under Section 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the requirement to prove that the abduction was for ransom and emphasized the need for communication of the ransom demand to hold the accused guilty under Section 364-A of the IPC.
Final Decision: One accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, while the other accused were convicted under a different section of the IPC and had their sentences modified.
S.K. Gangele, J.
1. All these three appeals have been filed against the common judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13th May, 2005 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, District Guna in Sessions Trial No. 196/2003. The trial Court convicted four accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 364-A/34 of Indian Penal Code [in short "IPC"] and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lac each; in default of payment of fine, further undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each.
2. Against this common judgment of conviction and sentence, appellant-accused Ashok S/o. Shri Ramnarayan Sharma preferred Criminal Appeal No. 34/2006; appellants- accused Gopal S/o. Shri Babulal and Naval Singh S/o Shri Jagnnath Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 384/2005 and appellant- accused Pradip Kumar S/o. Nannulal preferred Criminal Appeal No. 409/2005.
3. In Criminal Appeal No. 34/2006, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23/08/2006 suspended the execution of jail sentence of appellant- accused Ashok during pendency of appeal and granted bail. Remaining accused persons are in judicial custody.
4. All the Criminal Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The allegation against the accused persons is that they abducted Vikas Jain, who was a student, for ransom. After search operations, police rescued abductee-Vikash Jain. Report of the incident was lodged at police station Ashok Nagar on 31-03-2003 vide Ex.P.1. In the FIR Ex.P.1, it is mentioned that accused-Pradip Kumar and three other unknown persons abducted Vikas Jain, son of complainant- Ashok Kumar Jain. On the basis of FIR, police registered Crime No. 222/2003 for commission of offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC against the accused persons. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge-sheet in the committal Court and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. During trial, all the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution, in support its case, examined as many as six witnesses and placed documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3. On behalf of accused persons, in their defence, only one witness, namely, Rambharosa has been examined as DW1. The Court also examined two witnesses, namely, Prakash Singh as CW1 and Suresh Singh Sikarwar as CW2.
6. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court after appreciating 3 and marshalling the evidence of the prosecution, came to hold that charge under Section364-A/34 of IPC is proved against the accused persons and eventually, convicted them and awarded sentence accordingly, as mentioned above.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant accused Ashok S/o Ramnaryan Sharma in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2006, submitted that there is no evidence on record to hold the appellant- accused guilty for commission of offence. The appellant was not associated with commission of abduction of the abductee, neither he was identified by any of the witnesses. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on the basis of dock identification, is illegal.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, in support of impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, has contended that the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the accused guilty for commission of offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the trial Court are in accordance with law. Hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
9. PW1- Ashok Kukmar Jain, is father of abductee-Vikash Jain. He lodged FIR Ex.P-1 at police station Ashok Nagar. He deposed that on 31st March, 2003 his son Vikas Jain aged about 15-16 years, was a student of Class VIII. At around 8:00 O'clock in the morning, his son had gone to Vardhmaan School for
