No Conviction Can Be Made Out U/S 364A IPC Unless It’s Proved That Abduction Was Coupled With Ransom Demand & Life Threat: Chhattisgarh HC
|The Chhattisgarh High Court held that no conviction can be made out under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless it is proved that the abduction was coupled with ransom demand and life threat.
The Court held thus in a criminal appeal filed by two men under Section 375(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge by which they were convicted for the offence of abduction.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed, “Considering aforesaid contradictory statement of the complainant himself and the fact that all the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature and also considering the fact the complainant had no injury over his writ and legs as alleged by him and the alleged injuries sustained by the victim can be caused due slip down or fell down on the vehicle, there is no ingredients of voluntarily causing hurt. … No conviction can be made out under Section 364A of IPC unless it is proved by the prosecution that abduction was coupled with ransom demand and life threat.”
Advocates B.P. Singh and Jaideep Singh Yadav appeared for the appellants/accused while Panel Lawyer Pankaj Singh appeared for the respondent/State.
Facts of the Case -
In 2022, a report was lodged by the complainant that the appellants/accused persons came to his house and said that they wanted to see a car and then they sat with him in the vehicle. But they did not show him any vehicle and took him to a village and there they held him as hostage in their house and told him to tell his wife to bring the remaining money and only then he would be released and kept him tied with a chain inside the room. The next day when he tried to escape by breaking the door, he was beaten up by the appellants and they took him as hostage in a four-wheeler and took him towards the other place. One of the appellants sent the photo of the complainant’s hands and feet tied from the mobile phone of the complainant to his wife, asking her to get money.
Thereafter, his wife informed that two lakh rupees were deposited. The complainant suffered injuries on both his thighs due to the assault. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 365, 343, 323, and 34 of IPC against the appellants. During investigation, when sufficient grounds were found against the accused persons (appellants), they were arrested. The Trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants to a life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Being aggrieved, they approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “From perusal of evidence of the complainant Bhagwanta Sahu, it transpires that there is no allegation that appellant Yogesh Sahu along with one co-accused have demanded any ransom and it has come in the evidence that they have detained him and the reason behind it that he has helped to sell the vehicle i.e. (Truck) of the appellant Yogesh Sahu to one Ghazi Khan and Ghazi khan has not paid the total amount to appellant Yogesh Sahu and therefore due to that reason appellant Yogesh Sahu along with other co-accused Narendra alias Nandu has detained him only to take his money back.”
The Court said that it is not a case of ransom because the appellants have not called the complainant’s wife to pay ransom from her in lieu of leaving her husband and it is possible that her husband and the appellants have made planning to receive the rest of the amount of the truck from Gazi Khan.
“As such, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 323 of the IPC. … conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 364A, 343 and 323/34 of the IPC are liable to be set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants.
Cause Title- Yogesh Sahu & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:22818-DB)