Back
VIVEK RUSIA, RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
Deva @ Siddar @ Sardar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 02/12/2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity) Sheopur (M.P.) in Special Case No.38/2013 dacoity, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 364-A of I.P.C. read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.10.2009, complainant Badri (PW-3) had lodged a report at Police Station that today at 4 am, his son Mukesh went to the field from home for starting bore. When he did not return home till 2 pm, they searched him but could not find him. On that report, missing person report was registered at Missing Person No.5/09 at Police Station Haja and matter was investigated. During investigation, on 11.10.2009, missing person Mukesh appeared at the police station and his statement was recorded. Mukesh stated in statement that on 01.10.2009 at 04:00 am, he went to field from home for starting bore and as soon as he entered into the Ghopa made on bore, four persons armed with guns came there and surrounded him and caught hold him and forcefully took
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....
(1) Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by defence to doubt evidence of injured witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial.(2) Vic....
Supreme Court has wide power to alter charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. whilst not causing prejudice to accused.
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 court ruled that without evidence of force or deceitful means, the conviction under Section 364 IPC could not stand.
Kidnapping for ransom – Unless all conditions as enumerated in Section 364A of IPC are fulfilled, no conviction can be recorded.
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.
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
