The court clarified that kidnapping for ransom requires proof of intent to demand ransom at the time of abduction, which was not established, leading to acquittal under Section 364-A.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 342, 346, 348, 364-A, 385, 504, 506, and 34 - Conviction and acquittal of appellants challenged - Appellants convicted for wrongful confinement and extortion - Court found insufficient evidence for kidnapping for ransom - Acquitted of Section 364-A IPC - Conviction under Sections 342, 346, 348, and 385 read with 511 IPC upheld for one respondent. (Paras 81, 82)

(B) Sanction for Prosecution - The court ruled that the actions of the appellants were not in discharge of official duty, hence sanction was not required for prosecution. (Paras 70-79)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for wrongful confinement and extortion of a principal of an educational institution over a financial dispute. The court found that the appellants had detained the principal and demanded money. (Paras 2-8)

Findings of Court:
The court overturned the conviction for kidnapping for ransom due to lack of evidence, but upheld the conviction for wrongful confinement and attempt to extort. (Paras 81-82)

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellants were guilty of kidnapping for ransom and whether the actions fell under the color of official duty. (Paras 66-70)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a charge under Section 364-A IPC, the prosecution must prove the intent to demand ransom at the time of abduction, which was not established. (Paras 32-34)

Result: Appeals allowed in part; acquitted of Section 364-A IPC but upheld convictions under other sections.

J U D G M E N T :

Criminal Application No.1939/2021 is allowed. The applicant Dr. Uttamrao Dhanaji Mahajan be added as respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.104/2019.

These three appeals are being decided by this common judgment since they are interconnected. The challenge in these three appeals is to a judgment and order dated 19/1/2019, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.131/2012, whereunder the appellants Manoj and Dhiraj (in Criminal Appeal No.104/2019 and Criminal Appeal No.212/2019) have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 346, 348, 364-A, 385, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Manoj has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code while the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.468/2022 has been acquitted. The details of the order of conviction and acquittal impugned herein are shown in the chart below :-

Sr. No.	Name of the appellant/ accused	Charge	Order of conviction
1	Manoj Prabhakar Lohar and Dhiraj Yashwant Yeole	166, 342, 346, 348, 364-A, 385, 166-A, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC	S.342 r/w S.34 IPC R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days S.346 r/w S.34 I.P.C. R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days S.348 r/w S.34 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default S.I. for one month S. 364-A r/w 34 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default S.I. for five months. S.385 r/w S. 34 I.P.C. R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days S.506 r/w S.34 I.P.C. R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days
2	Manoj Prabhakar Lohar		S.504 I.P.C. R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default S.I. for 15 days. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3	Vishwas Raosaheb Nimbalkar	166, 342, 346, 348, 364-A, 385, 166-A, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC	Acquitted

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as follows :

The appellant Manoj (Criminal Appeal No.104/2019) was serving as Additional Superintendent of Police, Chalisgaon during the relevant time. While the respondent Vishwas (Criminal Appeal No.468/2022) was serving as Police Sub- Inspector with Chalisgaon Police Station. The appellant Dhiraj (Criminal Appeal No.212/2019) was resident of Chalisgaon. He was in politics and a social worker as well.

3. P.W.1 Uttamrao was the Principal of Ayurvedic College, Chalisgaon. Kisan Dnyanoday Mandal is an educational institute. Purushottam Patel and Mannubhai Patel were in the business of building and construction. They were partners of the firm – Shivam Construction. Work of construction of hostel and staff quarters of the College run by Kisan Dnyanoday Mandal was assigned by P.W.1 Dr. Uttamrao to Purushottam and Mannubhai Patel in the year 2004-2005.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that, the respondent Vishwas, in police uniform, accompanied by two constables in civil dress, met P.W.1 Uttamrao near Dhanvantari Hospital at 11.00 a.m. on 30/6/2009. The respondent informed him to have been called by appellant Manoj to his office. There was a public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi scheduled at Malegaon on 30/6/2009. P.W.1 Dr. Uttamrao being the leader of Congress Party, Chalisgaon, was supposed to attend the said meeting, taking along with him local members of the Congress Party. He, therefore, requested the respondent to allow him to visit appellant Manoj on his return from Malegaon. The respondent did not listen. He made P.W.1 Uttamrao sit on motorbike and brought him to the office of Additional Superintendent of Police (for short, Addl.S.P.), Chalisgaon. The appellant Manoj scolded and abused P.W.1 Uttamrao. He told Uttamrao to have received many complaints against him. Uttamrao was given for reading a complaint made by Purushottam Patel. Both Purushottam and Mannubhai were present in the of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

BENCH AT AURANGABADR.G. Avachat, R.M. Joshi, JJMANOJ S/O. PRABHAKAR LOHAR – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RespondentAPEAL 104 2019

The court clarified that kidnapping for ransom requires proof of intent to demand ransom at the time of abduction, which was not established, leading to acquittal under Section 364-A.

Cases Referred (1)

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.G. Avachat, R.M. Joshi, JJ
MANOJ S/O. PRABHAKAR LOHAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
APEAL 104 2019