Partly allowed

Ashok Singh @ Manager v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2024CRA/289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction for conspiracy, kidnapping for ransom, wrongful confinement and robbery. Relying on the victim's cross-examination admission and Supreme Court precedent, the court set aside convictions under Sections 120-B, 364-A and 395 IPC but upheld convictions under Sections 344 and 346 IPC, noting sentence already served.

What did the court decide?

Convictions/sentences under Sections 120-B, 364-A & 395 IPC set aside and acquittal granted on benefit of doubt; Sections 344 & 346 convictions upheld; appellant to be released as sentence served.

Ashok Singh @ Manager Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 289 of 20 17

¶5

[Arising out of judgment dated 13.01.2017, passed in Sessions Case No.843 of 2002 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rama Singh @ Ramkishore Singh and others), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.)]

¶6

Ashok Singh @ Manager, Son of Rajkumar Singh, aged about 45 years, Resident of Dudhimati, Darjichakra, Police Station and District Kodarma (Jharkhand)

¶7

---- Appellant (In Jail)

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Singh & Mr. Sudanshu K. Singh, Adv For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General

¶12

Division Bench

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Judgment on Board (18.07.2024)

¶15

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶16

(1) In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., the sole appellant herein is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (CG), in Sessions Case No.843 of 2002 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rama Singh @ Ramkishore Singh and other), whereby he have been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/s. 120-B of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with
	fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of

¶18

Page 2 of 15 IN

¶19

Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶20

	payment of imprisonment	fine, for 01	additional year.	rigorous
U/s. 364(A) of IPC	Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- a of fine, imprisonment	for nd, in add for 01	life with default o itional year.	fine of f payment rigorous
U/s. 344 of IPC	Rigorous impr fine of Rs.2, payment of imprisonment	isonm 000/- fine, for 03	ent for 01 and, in additional months.	years with default of rigorous
U/s. 346 of IPC	Rigorous impr	isonm	ent for 01	year.
U/s. 395 of IPC	Rigorous impr fine of Rs.10 payment of imprisonment	isonm ,000/- fine, for 01	ent for 07 and, in additional year.	years with default of rigorous

¶21

[All the sentences are directed to run concurrently]

¶22

(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 29.03.2001, at about 07:30 PM, at Bhatagaon, Raipur, the accused-appellant herein alongwith other co-accused persons conspired with each other and, in furtherance of their conspiracy, firstly abducted/kidnapped victim- Jaychand Vaidya (PW-14) and wrongfully confined him in the house of the appellant and, thereafter, demanded ransom of Rs.25,00,000/- for keeping him alive and also obtained the said amount of ransom in a running train from the relative of the victim (PW-14) and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶23

(3) It is further case of the prosecution that when the victim (PW14) got missing, a missing person report (Ex.P/10) was lodged and, thereafter, when on 30.03.2001, ransom call was received by the

¶24

Page 3 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶25

relative of the victim, FIR (Ex.P/22) was registered by the police and wheels of investigation started in running. During the course of investigation, on 15.05.2001, from Sadar Bazar, Jablapur (MP), the victim (PW-14) was recovered and panchnama to that effect was prepared vide Ex.P/15. Thereafter, statement of the victim (PW-14) was recorded, in which, he clearly narrated the incident took place with him and also implicated the present appellant alongwith other co-accused persons to be the authors of the crime in question. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/55. The appellant herein alongwith other co-accused persons were arrested and, thereafter, appellant’s memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/60. Test identification parade was also conducted vide Ex.P/17 to 20. After statements of witnesses were recorded and completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant and other co-accused persons in the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction and, ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

¶26

(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 34 witnesses and exhibited 112 documents apart from Ex.C/01 to C/05, whereas the accused persons in support of their defence, examined 03 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents.

¶27

Page 4 of 15 IN

¶28

Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶29

(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant herein for offence under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 344, 346 & 395 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶30

(6) Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offences, as the prosecution has failed to prove the said offences beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the victim (PW-14) in Para-266 of his crossexamination before the Court, which has also been relied upon by the learned trial Court in Para-40 of the impugned judgment, has clearly stated/admitted that in kidnapping, threatening and harassment, the present appellant has no role. The appellant was only the manager of the premises where the victim was kept, where he used to serve food to the victim as also to other co-accused persons and appellant’s behavior with the victim was good. As such, in view of aforesaid admission on the part of the victim (PW14), the appellant ought to have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, but he has been held guilty for the offences in question only on the basis of Section 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel vehemently argued that none of the ingredients for offence under Section 364-A

¶31

Page 5 of 15 IN

¶32

Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶33

of IPC are attracted in the present case against the appellant. He also submits that relying upon the same set of evidence, other coaccused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted for the aforesaid charges.

¶34

(7) Per contra , learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that in view of statement of prosecution witness, specially, victim (PW-14) coupled with other evidence available on record, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is well merited. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

(8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶36

(9) In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice first the charges framed against the appellant by the learned trial Court on 23.05.2007, which reads as under:

¶37

“ 1- rqeus fnukad 29-3-2001 dks dqEgkjh isVªksy iai ls HkkVk xkao ds ikl Fkkuk fHkykbZ&3 nqxZ esa izkFkhZ t;pan dk vigj.k bl vk’k; ls fd;k fd mls xqIr jhfr ls lnks"k ifjjks/k fd;k tkosA mlds }kjk rqeus ,slk vijk/k fd;k tks /kkjk 365 Hkk-n-fo- ds rgr naMuh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSaA

¶38

Page 6 of 15 IN

¶39

Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶40

2- rqeus fnukad 29-3-2001 dks dqEgkjh isVªksy iai ls HkkVk xkao ds ikl Fkkuk fHkykbZ&3 nqxZ esa izkFkhZ t;pan dk vigj.k bl vk’k; ls fd;k fd mldh viuh gR;k gksus dh vk’kadk gks x;h] ftlds }kjk rqeus og vijk/k fd;k tks /kkjk 364 Hkk-n-fo- ds rgr naMuh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA

¶41

3- rqeus fnukad 29-3-2001 dks izkFkhZ t;pan ds vigj.k dk vijk/k voS/k lk/kuksa }kjk djus ds fy, lger gq, vkSj mDr t;pan ds vigj.k dk dk;Z rqEgkjh lgefr ds vuq’kj.k esa fd;k ftlds }kjk ,slk vijk/k fd;k tks Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 120 ¼[k½ ds v/khu naMuh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSaA

¶42

4- rqeus fnukad 29-3-2001 ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ t;pan dks mldh {kfr ds Hk; ls lk’k; Mkyk vkSj rc }kjk eSVkst dkj] ilZe; :- 510@& Mkªbykblsal] eksckby Qksu] czhQdsl] ghjk tfM+r vaxwBh] csx rFkk 25 yk[k :i;s rqe ifjnRr djus ds fy, csbZekuh iwoZd mRizsfjr fd;k vkSj ;g ywV rqeus ikap vfHk;qDrksa dh lgk;rk ls fd;k tks MdSrh dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj /kkjk 395 Hkk-n-fo- ds rgr naMuh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSaA

¶43

5- rqeus fnukad 29-3-2001 ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ t;pan dks nl ls & fnuksa ds fy, lnks"k ifj:) fd;k tks /kkjk 344 Hkk-n-fo- ds rgr naMuh; gS o bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSaA

¶44

6- rqeus fnukad 29-3-2001 dks izkFkhZ t;pan dks fQjkSrh vnk djus ds fy, foo’k djus ds vk’k; ls mldk vigj.k fd;k tks /kkjk 364 ¼v½ Hkk-n-fo- ds rgr naMuh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSaA

¶45

7- rqeus fnukad 29-3-2001 ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ t;pan dks lnks"k ifjjks/k bl izdkj fd;k ftlls ;g vk’k; izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ls fgrc) fdlh O;fDr dks mDr ifjjks/k ;k ifjjks/k ds LFkku dh tkudkjh u gksus ik,A ftlds }kjk rqeus og vijk/k fd;k tks /kkjk 346 Hkk-n-fo- ds rgr naMuh; gS o bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSaA”

¶46

(10) In the case at hand, the victim (PW-14) has been crossexamined by the defence extensively. So far as the present appellant is concerned, during cross-examination, in Para-266, the victim (PW-14) has stated as under:

¶47

Page 7 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶48

“ 266& ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksih v’kksd flag dk esjs vigj.k djus esa vkSj eq>s /kedkus ;k fdlh rjg ls izrkfM+r djus esa dksbZ Hkwfedk ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksih v’kksd flag eSa tgka :dk Fkk] ogWk ij esjs vkSj vigj.kdrkZvksa ds [kkus&ihus dh O;oLFkk djrk Fkk vkSj og Loa; uhps ds Q~ySV esa jgrk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksih v’kksd flag esjs vigj.k ds nkSjku :dus ds LFkku ij ,d O;oLFkkid dh gSfl;r j[krk FkkA esjs ls vkjksih v’kksd flag dk O;ogkj vPNk Fkk] ftlds dkj.k eSaus mlls enn ekaxh Fkh] fdUrq mlus dHkh enn ugha dhA eSa ugh crk ldrk fd vkjksih v’kksd flag vigj.kdrkZvksa ds Mj ds dkj.k esjh enn ugha djrk FkkA”

¶49

(11) A bare perusal of the above-quoted statement would show that the victim (PW-14) has clearly admitted before the Court that in kidnapping, threatening and harassment the present appellant has no role. The appellant was only the manager of the premises where the victim was kept, where he used to serve food to him (victim) as also to other co-accused persons and used to reside in the flat situated below. Appellant’s behavior with the victim was good, on account of which, he asked him for his help, but he refused. The learned trial Court also relied upon the said statement/admission of the appellant in Para-40 of the impugned judgment. However, the learned trial Court in Para-43 of the impugned judgment has also recorded a finding that after kidnapping, the victim (PW-14) was kept in the house of the appellant herein. For instance, the findings of the learned trial Court from Para-40 to Para-43 reads under:

¶50

“ 40& v-lk- 14 izkFkhZ t;pan oS/k us vius izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk 266 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vkjksih v’kksd flag dk mlds vigj.k djus

¶51

Page 8 of 15 IN

¶52

Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶53

esa vkSj mls /kedkus ;k fdlh rjg ls izrkfM+r djus esa dksbZ Hkwfedk ugha gSaA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vkjksih v’kksd flag] og tgka :dk Fkk] ogka ij mlds vkSj vigj.kdrkZvksa ds [kkus&ihus dh O;oLFkk djrk Fkk vkSj og Loa; uhps ds ¶ySV esa jgrk Fkk A ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vkjksih v’kksd flag mlds vigj.k ds nkSjku #dus ds LFkku ij ,d O;oLFkkid dh gSfl;r j[krk FkkA mlds lkFk vkjksih v’kksd flag dk O;ogkj vPNk Fkk] ftlds dkj.k mlus mlls enn ekaxh Fkh] fdUrq mlus dHkh enn ugah dhA izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk 267 esa izkFkhZ us dFku fd;k gS fd mls bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd vigj.kdrkZ vkjksih v’kksd flag dks bl ckr dh tkudkjh nsrs Fks ;k ugh fd os fdls yk jgs gSa vkSj fdls ys tk jgsa gSa] xokg Lor% dgrk gS fd fdUrq v’kksd flag dks ‘’kq# ls bl ckr dh tkudkjh Fkh fd mls vigj.k djds yk;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us dFku fd;k gS fd og ;g ugha crk ldrk fd vkjksih v’kksd flag dks Hkh vigj.kdrkZ mldh gh rjg tcjnLrh ca/kd cukdj ukSdj dh rjg j[ks Fks vkSj Li"V fd;k gS fd tcls og ml ?kj esa Fkk] rcls ogka cqysV [kM+h ns[kk Fkk vkSj vkjksih v’kksd flag jkstkuk ‘’kke dks cqysV esa lkeku oxSjg ys tkuk crk;k gSA

¶54

41& vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd Lo;a vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag dks vigj.kdrkZvksa ds }kjk Mjk&/kedkdj ca/kd cukdj j[kk x;k FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ t;pan oS| ds vigj.k esa vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag dk dksbZ gkFk FkkA vfHk;qDr v’kksd falag ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd iqfyl ds }kjk bl laca/k esa dksbZ foospuk ugha dh xbZ gS fd vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag dks Mjk&/kedkdj dke djk;k tkrk Fkk] ftlds dkj.k mlds fo#) dksbZ vijk/k izekf.kr ugha gksrkA fdUrq izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag dks ’kq# ls gh bl ckr dh tkudkjh Fkh fd mls vigj.k djds yk;k x;k gS vkSj og ;g ugha crk ldrk fd vkjksih v’kksd flag dks Hkh vigj.kdrkZ mldh gh rjg ca/kad cukdj ukSdj dh rjg j[ks FksA vfHk;qDr ds fo)ku vf/koDrk ds vuqlkj bl rF; dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj vfHk;kstu ij Fkk vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag dks Hkh Mjk&/kedkdj ca/kdj cukdj vigj.kdrkZvksa ds }kjk j[kk x;k Fkk] fdUrq vfHk;qDr ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ ekU; fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSa] D;ksafd bl rF; dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds vuqlkj Lo;a vfHk;qDr ij gSA lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ;g dgrh gS fd tgka dksbZ rF; Lo;a vfHk;qDr ds Kku esa gks] mls lkfcr djus dk Hkkj vfHk;qDr ij gksxk] fdUrq vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls bl laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k

¶55

Page 9 of 15 IN

¶56

Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶57

x;k gS fd mls vijg.kdrkZvksa ds }kjk gh ca/kad cukdj vkSj Mjk /kedkdj j[kk x;k FkkA

¶58

42& v-lk- 14 izkFkhZ t;pan oS+| us izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk 270 esa crk;k tc og NwVk] rks mls dsoy czhQdsl okil fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj Li"V fd;k gS fd dkxtkr dks mls Lo;a QkM+dj ckFk#e ds yk¶V esa Qsad fn;k Fkk] rkfd mldh ekyh gSfl;r dk vijgj.kdrkZvksa dks irk u yxsA ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldk czhQdsl rhu&pkj g¶rksa rd vijg.kdrkZvksa ds ikl Fkk] os mls [kksydj vkjke ls mldh ekyh gSfl;r dk irk ykx ldrs FksA i z kFkhZ us izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk 271 esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tc og ckFk#e tkrk Fkk] rks viuk czhQdsl ysdj ugha tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds vigj.k ds nkSjku mldh fuxjkuh ?kj esa jgus] lksus] ckFk#e tkus] [kkus gj le; jgrh Fkh vkSj Li"V fd;k gS fd mlesa vkjksih v’kksd flag Hkh FkkA izkFkhZ us vkxs dFku fd;k gS fd vkt og ugha crk ldrk fd mlus fdl fnu czhQdsl ls dkxtkr fudkydj mls QkM+dj Qsadk FkkA mlus mu dkxtksa tSlh fLFkfr esa os Fks] oSlh gh fLFkr esa QkM+dj Qsad fn;k FkkA

¶59

43& izkFkh t;pan oS| ds mDr dFkuksa dk leFkZu v-lk- 23 vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh mi fujh{kd ts-,l- lXxw ds dFkuksa ls Hkh gksrk gS] ftlus mDr QkM+s gq, dkxtksa ds VwdM+s dh tIrh izih- 58 ds }kjk fd;k Fkk] ftls vkfVZdy&ts] vkfVZdy&ds] vkfVZdy ,y&1 rFkk vkfVZdy&,e ls vafdr fd;k x;k gSA izih- 17 ds f’kuk[Rhh eseks] tks izkFkhZ t;pan oS| ds vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag ds edku esa dksMjek esa ca/kad cukdj j[ks tkus ij rFkk izih- 58 ds vuqlkj mls ca/kd cukdj j[ks tkus dh vof/k esa fy[kdj QkM+dj Qsads dkxtkrksa ds VwdM+s] tks vkfVZdy ts] vkfVZdy&ds] vkfVZdy ,t&1 gS] vigj.k ds Ik’pkr t;pan oS| dks dksMjek esa vfHk;qDr v’kksd flag ds edku esa ca/kad cukdj j[ks tkus ds rF; dh iqf"V djrs gSA”

¶60

(12) A conjoint reading of the aforesaid paragraphs would show that the learned trial Court has held that the present appellant was also a party to the conspiracy in the present case and, after kidnapping of the victim (PW-14), he was wrongfully confined in the house of the appellant herein. However, there is no such evidence available on record to show that the said house, in which, the

¶61

Page 10 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶62

victim (PW-14) was kept, belongs to the appellant herein or he was the owner of the same. At this stage, the decision of the Supreme 1 Court in the matter of Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgargh

¶63

may be noticed profitably, wherein their Lordships have considered the conditions which needs to be met for invoking Section 364-A of IPC and held in Para-34 to 37 as under:-

¶64

“34. This court in the case of Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana , (2021) 9 SCC 59 has held that in order to make out an offence under Section 364 A, three conditions must be met:

¶65

A) There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction;

¶66

B) There is a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or the accused by their conduct give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt

¶67

C) Or cause death or hurt to such a person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state or intergovernmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.

¶68

35. The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there. It was reiterated by this Court in the case of Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana , (2023) 6 SCC 76.

¶69

36. In the present case, what the prosecution has

¶70

1 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 13

¶71

Page 11 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶72

miserably failed to establish is the demand of ransom. As per the prosecution, the complainant’s father i.e., Praneet Sharma (PW-5) received a phone call from which a demand of ransom was made. The phone call was allegedly traced as being of one Ravi Kumar Dwivedi but no evidence was placed on record to establish the demand of ransom before the Court which was absolutely necessary in view of the law laid done by this Court in Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202.

¶73

37. For making out a case under Section 364-A, the first condition i.e., kidnapping or abduction must be coupled with either the second or the third condition as held by this Court in Shaik Ahmed (supra). Under the said provision, the accused is liable to be punished either by death or imprisonment for life and is also liable to be fined considering the gravity of the offence. In the present case, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that an offence under Section 364 is made out, we do not find that the offence would come under the ambit of Section 364A. ”

¶74

(13) Bearing in mind the above-quoted principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that in the present case as per Para-266 of the statement of the victim (PW-14) coupled with the findings of the learned trial Court in Para-40 & 43, there is no evidence available on record to show that: (i) the appellant herein was also a party to the kidnapping or abduction of the victim (PW-14); (ii) any harassment was meted out by the appellant herein on the victim (PW-14) or any actual hurt was caused to the victim (PW-14) by the appellant; and (iii) any threat to cause death was given by the appellant to the victim (PW-14).

¶75

Page 12 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶76

Indeed, the present appellant was only present in the premises in the capacity of manger, where the victim was kept and he used to serve food to the victim and other co-accused persons. As such, necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 364-A of IPC are completely missing in the present case, however, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant herein with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC. Therefore, the question would be once the necessary ingredients of main offence (i.e. 364-A of IPC) is completely missing against the appellant, the learned trial Court is justified in holding him guilty for other offences in question with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC ?

¶77

(14) A bare perusal of the charges framed by the learned trial Court against the appellant herein would show that the appellant has been charged for having committed offence under Section 120B of IPC on the pretext that the victim (PW-14) was kidnapped with the consent of the appellant. Section 120-A of IPC defines “criminal conspiracy”, which states that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. As such, the necessary ingredients to constitute offence of criminal conspiracy are: (a) there should be an agreement between two or more persons; (b) such an agreement should be (i) either for doing an illegal act, (ii) or for doing an act by illegal means; and (iii) or for breaking the law i.e. act which is made

¶78

Page 13 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶79

punishable by the IPC; and (c) such an agreement must follow an overt act. Whereas, in the present case, there is no such charge framed against the present appellant.

¶80

(15) The Supreme Court in the matter of Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay2 while noticing the significance of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A has held that the gist of the offence is an agreement to break law. It has been further held that the parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts.

¶81

(16) Similarly, in the matter of Saju v. State of Kerala3 while interpreting the provisions of Sections 120-A and 120-B of IPC, their Lordships of Supreme Court clearly held that to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the

¶82

2 AIR 1961 SC 1762

¶83

3 (2001) 1 SCC 378

¶84

Page 14 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶85

crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available.

¶86

(17) Finally reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the above-mentioned principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court qua applicability of Section 120-B of IPC, it is quite vivid that there is no finding recorded by the learned trial Court that in the present case there was any agreement between two or more person, specifically appellant herein, to commit any offence and such an agreement has followed an overt act. No overt act has been brought or established against the appellant herein. Merely, by mentioning in the charge that the victim (PW-14) was abducted with the consent of the appellant herein, would not make Section 120-B of IPC applicable on the appellant herein under the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, in absence of necessary ingredients for committing offence under Section 364-A of IPC, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Sharma (supra) and, furthermore, in absence of any specific charge of criminal conspiracy against the appellant and in absence of any evidence with regard to committing robbery by the appellant herein, in light of Para-266 of the statement of the victim (PW-14) coupled with the findings of the learned trial Court in Para-40 & 43 of the impugned judgment, the conviction of the appellant here for offences under Section 120-B, 364-A, 395 of IPC are liable to be set aside. We hereby hold accordingly.

¶87

Page 15 of 15 IN Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2017

¶88

(18) Accordingly, in view of foregoing analysis, the conviction and respective sentences of the appellant for offences under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 395 of IPC, as passed by the learned trial Court, are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. However, the conviction and respective sentences of the appellant for offences under Sections 344 & 346 of IPC, as passed by the learned trial Court, are hereby affirmed/upheld and same shall remain as it is, being well merited. At this stage, it has been brought to our notice that the appellant has already served the maximum punishment awarded to him for having committing offences under Section 344 & 346 of IPC. Consequently, the appellant be released from jail, if no required in any other offence/crime.

¶89

(19) This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶90

(20) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are languishing for necessary information and needful action, if any.

¶91

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶92

s@if

Ashok Singh @ Manager v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Singh @ Manager v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemlal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kunjbihari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Sevay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toshan Bhaskar @ Raju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Ekka And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh