Chhattisgarh High Court: In a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) against the judgment dated 25-05-2023, passed by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (‘the Trial Court’), whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 364-A, 343, 323 and 324 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ* and Sachin Singh Rajput, J., opined that no conviction could be made out under Section 364-A of the IPC, unless it was proved by the prosecution that abduction was coupled with ransom demand and life threat. The Court opined that the prosecution had failed to establish offence under Section 364-A of the IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the finding on which the Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 364-A of the IPC was wholly perverse. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 25-05-2023 passed by the Trial Court.
Background
The complainant stated that on 03-04-2022, the appellants came to his house and stated that they wanted to see a car, and then sat with the complainant in a vehicle and took him to another village, where they held him hostage in their house. The appellants told the complainant to ask his wife to bring the remaining money from ‘X’, only then he would be released. Thereafter, when the complainant tried to escape, he was beaten up by the appellants and they took him to another place. Appellant 1 sent the photographs of the complainant’s hands and feet to his wife and demanded the money from ‘X’. On 07-04-2022, the complainant’s wife told Appellant 1 that ‘X’ had deposited Rs. 2 lakhs in his account and the remaining amount would be given by the cheque. The complainant stated that he suffered injuries on both of his thighs due to the assault.
Thus, based on the aforesaid complaint, the FIR was registered under Sections 365, 343, 323 and 34 of the IPC, against the appellants. Subsequently, the Trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after examination of the witnesses’ statements, noted that it was clear enough that Appellant 1 and the complainant were friends. The complainant had helped to sell the vehicle of Appellant 1 to ‘X’, who had not paid the purchase amount to the appellant. Therefore, due to that reason there was some dispute between Appellant 1 and the complainant. However, this was not a case of ransom because the appellants had not called the complainant’s wife to pay ransom, and it was possible that they were planning to receive the rest of the amount of the vehicle from ‘X’.
The Court stated that no conviction could be made out under Section 364-A of IPC, unless it was proved by the prosecution that abduction was coupled with ransom demand and life threat. The Court opined that the prosecution had failed to establish offence under Section 364-A of IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the finding on which the Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 364-A of the IPC was wholly perverse.
Regarding conviction of the appellants under Section 343 of IPC, the Court observed that it was evident from the complainant’s statement that on the date of the incident, the complainant went from his home on his own will with Appellant 1 and he travelled with the appellants to so many crowded places, but he neither resisted, nor tried to call anyone for his help. Further, after examination of the statements of the driver of the vehicle in which complainant was alleged to be abducted, the Court opined that there was no evidence of wrongful confinement by the appellants. The Court stated that the Trial Court was unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 343 of the IPC.
Further, regarding conviction of the appellants under Section 323 and 324 of the IPC, the Court considered the contradictory statements of the complainant and the simple injuries sustained by him. The Court also considered that the complainant had no injury over his wrists and legs as alleged and opined that the alleged injuries sustained could be caused due to slip down or fell from the vehicle. The Court stated that there were no ingredients of voluntarily causing hurt, and the Trial Court was unjustified in convicting the appellants under Section 323 of the IPC.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 25-05-2023 convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Section 364-A, 343 and 323/34 of the IPC.
[Yogesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 5112, decided on 28-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: B.P. Singh, Advocate and Jaideep Singh Yadav.
For the Respondent: Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
