IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
Bakar Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2012 (Indore): against the judgment dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 357/2010; Decided on 5.11.2024
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.364A -- no threat of hurt or death given to abductee -- he admitted that appellant did not use any pressure while taking him -- no force or pressure was used against him even in car -- when tyre of car got punctured, appellant asked him to arrange money but did not cause him any hurt -- from statement of PW-4 also it cannot be inferred that it was appellant who demanded ransom amount -- ingredients for attracting S. 364A not fulfilled -- conviction cannot be sustained. (2021) 9 SCC 59 followed. [Paras 12 & 13]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 458, 392/397 and 429 -- witnesses have given vivid details of incident with items looted -- also proved that appellant, at point of knife, looted their jewellery, ATM Card, mobile phones and caused death of their dog when it pounced on appellant -- all looted items brought before Court and properly proved -- no material contradictions or omissions in testimony of prosecution witnesses -- seizure of looted car, knife, telephone wire etc. proved -- arrest of appellant and test identification parade proved -- no factual or legal error in holding appellant guilty. [Paras 14 & 15]
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 364d & vig~r O;fä dks migfr ;k e`R;q dh /kedh ugha nh xbZ & mlus Lohdkj fd;k fd vihykFkhZ us mls ys tkrs le; dksbZ ncko ugha cuk;k & dkj esa Hkh mlds fo:) dksbZ cy ;k ncko ç;qä ugha fd;k x;k & tc dkj dk ifg;k iaDpj gqvk rc vihykFkhZ us mlls /ku dh O;oLFkk djus dks dgk ijarq mls dksbZ migfr dkfjr ugha dh & vlk&4 ds dFku ls Hkh ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd og vihykFkhZ gh Fkk ftlus fQjkSrh dh jde dh ekax dh & /kkjk 364d vk—"V djus ds fy, la?kVdksa dh iwfrZ ugha gksrh & nks"kflf) fLFkj ugha j[kh tk ldrhA ¼2021½ 9 ,llhlh 59 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 458] 392@397 rFkk 429 & lk{khx.k us ywVh xbZ oLrqvksa ds lkFk ?kVuk dk foLr`r C;kSjk fn;k & ;g Hkh lkfcr fd;k fd vihykFkhZ us pkdw dh uksd ij muds vkHkw"k.k] ,Vh,e dkMZ] eksckby Qksu ywVs rFkk tc mudk dqÙkk vihykFkhZ ij >iVk rc mldh e`R;q dkfjr dh & ywVh xbZ lHkh oLrq,a U;k;ky; ds le{k ykbZ xbZ vkSj mfpr ढax ls lkfcr dh xbZ & vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds ifjlk{; esa dksbZ rkfRod fojks/kkHkkl ;k yksi ugha & ywVh xbZ dkj] pkdw vkSj VsyhQksu ds rkj vkfn dk vfHkxzg.k lkfcr & vihykFkhZ dh fxjrkjh rFkk 'kuk[r ijsM ijh{kk lkfcr & vihykFkhZ dks nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ rF;kRed ;k fof/kd xyrh ughaA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½
JUDGMENT
Dwivedi, J. -- 1. This appeal filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') assails the judgment dated 30.4.2012 in S. T. No.357/2010 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Dewas whereby the appellant has been found guilty for offence under section 458, 392, read with section 397, 364-A and 429 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- , R.I. For 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for three years respectively with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that complainant Smt. S.Parimala Srinivasan (PW-1) on 21.9.2010 lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali, Dewas stating that she is residing at Sadashiv Nagar and Principal in Central Academy. Her husband is Director in the Caparo Tube, Dewas. On the fateful day, she and her husband A. Srinivasan (PW-2) were sleeping in the room situated at upper floor of the house. When she woke up hearing barking of the dog, mugger armed with knife was standing by the side of their bed. That person asked for surrendering their money. When the pet dog pounced on mugger, he stabbed the dog to death. Armed mugger again threatened them to surrender their cash and jewellry and for that he forced her to open their Almirah. Gold chain of near about 10 grams, 3 rings one having embedded with diamond, second one embedded with pearl and third one with Moonga, all weighing near about 15 grams, ear rings of near about 6 grams, coin of silver having image of Laxmi, three mobile phones, one Samsung bearing SIM No.9826252787, two Nokia mobiles having SIM Nos.9826078725 and 9752091001 and ATM card of SBI was also snatched by that person. After that assailant thief also asked for laptop and on the point of knife that persons took her husband to the ground floor and asked for key of car of Honda City Silver Colour bearing registration No. MP-11-CC-0392. After that he forced to open the gate of the house and to start the car. When her husband said that he don't know to drive the car, that person forced her husband to sit in the car and forcibly took him away. She disclosed features/identity of the miscreant to police .
3. On this information, FIR was registered at Crime No.1135/2010 on 21.9.2010 and an investigation was set in motion. Spot map, damage Panchnama for damage of laptop were prepared. From the spot, two knives used for cutting vegetables, one napkin, one fibre sheet, three burned pieces of rubber, telephone wire, loose rubber pipe were also seized. Blood of the dog was raised with the aid of cotton. Postmortem of the dog was conducted. When the police chased the mugger, he nearby the ATM of SBI at Palda, left her husband with car and fled away. After that their Honda City car was seized. The accused was arrested and on his information, disclosure statement was prepared. The looted articles were seized from the appellant and Test Identification Parade of the appellant and the looted articles was conducted wherein looted articles and the appellant was duly identified. Blood stained cotton, plain cotton, blood-stained knife were seized and sent to FSL Gwalior through the Superintendent of Police, Dewas for examination. Call details of the complainant were taken. Statements of the complainant Smt. S.Parmila (PW-1) Srinivasan, A. Srinivasan (PW-2), Sabir Khan, Motilal Khatri (PW-4), Hemendra Singh Raghuwanshi (PW-3), Sachin Soni, Santosh Kumar Goud were also recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
4. On completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Court of competent Magistrate having local jurisdiction. Learned Magistrate after complying with the formalities stipulated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court framed charges for offence under sections 458, 392 read with sections 397, 364-A, 440 and 429 of IPC and read
Kidnapping for ransom – Unless all conditions as enumerated in Section 364A of IPC are fulfilled, no conviction can be recorded.
Supreme Court has wide power to alter charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. whilst not causing prejudice to accused.
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 prosecution must prove all elements of Section 364(A) IPC, including a clear connection between the act of hurt and the ransom demand; failure to do so warrants a lesser charge.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for admissible evidence to prove the essential elements of criminal offences, emphasizing the importance of meeting the evidentiary....
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.