Allowed

Manoj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Nov 2024CRA/717/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed appeals against conviction for kidnapping for ransom (Section 364A IPC). Finding evidence insufficient to prove demand of ransom and threat to life, the court acquitted some appellants of kidnapping charges but convicted/rerouted three appellants to obstruction of justice while affirming other sentences.

What did the court decide?

Convictions for kidnapping for ransom set aside; convictions for obstruction of justice affirmed for three appellants; other sentences affirmed; all appellants released from jail.

Manoj Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 27

¶2

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶3

2024:CGHC:46261-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 717 OF 2019

¶7

Manoj Sharma, S/o Shri Ramkishan Sharma, aged about 26 years, R/o Chakeri, Ramdevi Colony, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh). Presently R/o Sejbahar Housing Board Colony, L.I.G. 415, C/o Praful Shrivastava, Police Station Sejbahar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, through: District Magistrate, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

And

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2019

¶14

Abdul Sami Khan @ Abdul Sami, S/o Shri Abdul Kadir Khan, aged about 38 years, R/o Jai Jawan Society, Wanwadi, Police Station Wanwadi, District Pune (Maharashtra) (wrongly mentioned as Jai Jawan Society, Banodi, P.S Vanvedi, District Pune, Maharashtra). Presently R/o Boriyakala Housing Board Colony, House No. R/Wood/110, Police Station Sejbahar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

... Appellant(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Chhattisgarh, through: District Magistrate, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

With

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2019

¶21

1. Aboni, S/o Anil Mistri, aged about 27 years, R/o Krishak Nagar Bande, 102, P. S. Bande, Civil and Revenue District Kanker (Chhattisgarh). Presently

¶22

2 / 27

¶23

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶24

R/o Temri Basti, Ranjit Mandal’s Cooler Factory, P.S. Mana, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶25

2. Smt. Malti @ Khushi @ Nisha, W/o Sami @ Samir @ Abdul Sami, aged about 28 years, R/o Jai Jawan Society, Village Banodi, P.S. Vandedi, Civil and Revenue District Pune (Maharastra). Presently R/o Bande 102, Krishak Nagar, P. S. Bande, Civil and Revenue District Kanker (Chhattisgarh) (wrongly mentioned as P.S. Bandak). Presently R/o Boriyakala Housing Board Colony, House No. R/Wood/110, P. S. Sejbahar, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶26

3. Smt. Priti Sharma, W/o Manoj Sharma, aged about 25 years, R/o Chakeri Ramdevi Mohalla, P. S. Chakeri, District Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh). Presently R/o Near Bhogni Reliance Tower, P. S. Bhogni, District Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh). Presently R/o Boriyakala Housing Board Colony, House No.415, Praful Shrivastava’s House, P. S. Sejbahar, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶27

... Appellant(s) Versus

¶28

 State of Chhattisgarh, through: P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶29

... Respondent(s)

¶30

--------------------------------------- For Appellants	------------------------------------------ :- Mr. Kshitij Sharma,
[In Cr.A. Nos.717 & 624/2019]	Advocate.
For Appellants	:- Mr. Adil Minhaj,
[In Cr.A. No.606/2019]	Advocate.
For Respondent/State	:- Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General.

¶31

Division Bench

¶32

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶33

Judgment on Board [26.11.2024]

¶34

3 / 27

¶35

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶36

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶37

1. The present three Criminal Appeals, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) assails the legality, validity and correctness of the Judgment dated 28.3.2019 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur in Sessions Case No.180/2017.

¶38

2. Vide impugned judgment, the five Appellants herein i.e. A-1 Manoj Sharma (Appellant in Cr.A. No.707/2019), A-2 Abdul Sami Khan @ Abdul Sami (Appellant in Cr.A. No.624/2019) and A-3 Aboni, A-4 Smt. Malti @ Khushi @ Nisha & A-5 Smt. Priti Sharma (Appellants in Cr.A. No.606/2019) have been convicted for offences under Section 364A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), Sections 120B read with Section 364A of IPC, Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC and in addition A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni both have been convicted for offences under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and further A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami and A-3 Aboni have also been convicted for offence under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) and have been sentenced thereunder as shown at the charts below:-

¶39

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶40

4 / 27

¶41

A-1 Manoj Sharma (Cr.A. No.717/2019)

¶42

Conviction	Sentence
1. Under Section 364A read with Section120B of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
2. Under Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
3. Under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.
4. Under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.

¶43

All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶44

A-2 Abdul Sami K (Cr.A. No Conviction	han @ Abdul Sami .624/2019) Sentence
1. Under Section 364A read with Section120B of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.

¶45

5 / 27

¶46

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶47

2. Under Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
3. Under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.
4. Under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.
5. Under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.
All substantive senten to run co	ces have been directed ncurrently.

¶48

A-3 Aboni

¶49

(Cr.A. No.606/2019)

¶50

Conviction	Sentence
1. Under Section 364A read with Section120B of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
2. Under Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo

¶51

6 / 27

¶52

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶53

	Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
3. Under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.
4. Under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.
5. Under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.

¶54

All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶55

A-4 Smt. Malti @ Khushi @ Nisha

¶56

(Cr.A. No.606/2019)

¶57

Conviction	Sentence
1. Under Section 364A read with Section120B of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
2. Under Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC.	1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
3. Under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-.

¶58

7 / 27

¶59

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶60

In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month. All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶61

A-5 Smt. Priti Sharma (Cr.A. No.606/2019)

¶62

Conviction		Sentence
1. Under Section 364A read with Section120B of IPC.	1. 2. 3.	Life Imprisonment. Fine of Rs.500/-. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
2. Under Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC.	1. 2. 3.	Life Imprisonment. Fine of Rs.500/-. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months.
3. Under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.	1. 2. 3.	Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. Fine of Rs.200/-. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month.
All substantive senten to run co	ces ncu	have been directed rrently.

¶63

Prosecution case, in brief:-

¶64

3. On 18.3.2017 around 12:30 at night, the Station House Officer of Police Station, D.D. Nagar recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-1) lodged by PW-1 Sulbha Gupta stating inter alia that on 17.3.2017 at about 8:30 p.m. her husband (PW-2 Sushil Kumar Gupta) left his

¶65

8 / 27

¶66

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶67

house on his Activa scooty saying that he would return in a short while but when he took a long time to return in that night, worried she made repeated calls on her husband’s mobile number but it was getting disconnected. Thereafter, around 11:30 p.m. a phone call came on her mobile number from her husband’s mobile number, which was made by some unknown person threatening that her husband has been kidnapped and he would be released only in lieu thereof Rs.10 Lakh is paid as ransom. FIR (Ex.47) was registered in the matter and the wheels of investigation started running.

¶68

4. According to the prosecution, a conspiracy of kidnapping the victim (PW-2 Sushil Kumar Gupta) and demanding ransom in lieu thereof was hatched by A-1 Manoj Sharma who was well acquainted with the victim as he had earlier worked for the victim and aware of the fact that the victim had his doublestoried house in Changorabhata which he was willing to give on rent. In prosecution of their sinister plan, on 9.3.2017, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan made a phone call from mobile no. 9522693273 on the victim’s mobile number for letting his house on rent to him and to meet his parents for dinner and thereafter on

¶69

9 / 27

¶70

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶71

14.3.2017 and 15.3.2017 also the victim was phone called by A-2 Abdul Sami Khan. On 16.3.2017 both A-1 Manoj Sharma and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan in execution of their plan to kidnap the victim also said to have gone to Raigarh but they could not succeed on that day. Subsequently, on 17.3.2017, when the victim had come to Raipur, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan phone called the victim from his aforementioned mobile number to meet him at Raipur and again at 5:15 A-2 Abdul Sami Khan called the victim and asked him to come to his home to meet his parents and to have dinner. The victim left at 8:00 p.m. to Sapphire-Inn hotel and from where both the victim on his Activa scooty and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan on his motorcycle left and en route near Sadani bazaar A-2 Abdul Sami Khan took the victim on his motorcycle to House No. R/Wood-110 of Boriyakala Housing Board Colony and where he tied him with the help of rope and confined him in the upper room of the said house and A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-3 Aboni, A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti were watching and guarding the victim in the said house. Thereafter, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan made a ransom call on the mobile number of the victim’s wife (PW-1 Sulbha Gupta) from the victim’s mobile number

¶72

10 / 27

¶73

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶74

demanding Rs.10 Lakh in lieu of release of the victim. A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni also said to have threatened the victim to his life on the gun point of country made pistol (desi katta) and they also bought pick-axe and spade for the purpose of causing his death and also said to have withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from the ATM card of the victim.

¶75

5. On the basis of CDR (Ex. P-40) and mobile tower location of the victim and also on the basis of other vital informations received during the investigation, vide Recovery Panchnama (Ex. P-11) the rescue of the victim was made from House No.R/Wood/110 of Boriyakala Housing Board Colony and he was released from the illegal confinement. His medical examination was conducted (not exhibited). Vide Exbts. P-27 P-30 & P-33, memorandum statements of A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni were recorded pursuant thereto, one country made pistol, five live cartridges and two mobile numbers were recovered from the possession of A-1 Manoj Sharma vide seizure memo (Ex. P-17); one country made pistol, Rs.5000/- cash, one knife and three mobile phones were recovered from the

¶76

11 / 27

¶77

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶78

possession of A-2 Abdul Sami Khan vide seizure memo (Ex. P-15) and from the possession of A-3 Aboni also one country made pistol and one mobile phone were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex. P-16). Similarly, from the possession of A-4 Malti, two Adhar Cards and one PAN Card were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex. P-19) and from the possession of A-5 Priti also one Adhar Card and two Voter IDs were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex. P-20). Vide Exbts. P-31 & P-32, printer, scanner, ATM Card, ID Card, Driving Licence, purse etc., were recovered from the possession of A-2 Abdul Sami Khan. Activa scooty of the victim was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-28). Vide Exbts. P-7, P-8, P-9 & P-10, identification of the Appellants (A-1 to A-5) was made by the victim (PW-2) in presence of Executive Magistrate, PW-9 Jyoti Singh and other witnesses in the Test Identification Parade.

¶79

6. On completion of the investigation, the Appellants were charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate who took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. After committal, the Appellants appeared before the Trial

¶80

12 / 27

¶81

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶82

Court where charges were framed to which they denied and entreated for trial.

¶83

7. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-21 and exhibited 102 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-102. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused Appellants were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of CrPC has been relied on vide Ex. D-1. Art. A-1-C is the bill for purchase of pick-axe and spade.

¶84

8. On conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence came on record, found the Appellants (A-1 to A-5) guilty of committing the aforementioned offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced them in the manner as mentioned at the charts given in the second paragraph of this judgment, which led to the filing of the present three appeals separately by A-1 Manoj Sharma (who has filed Cr.A. No.717/2019) and

¶85

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶86

13 / 27

¶87

A-2 Abdul Sami Khan (who has filed Cr.A. No.624/2019) and jointly by A-3 Aboni, A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti (who have filed Cr.A. No.606/2019) challenging the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court.

¶88

:Submissions of parties

¶89

9. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for A-1 Manoj Sharma and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan, would submit that learned Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting these two Appellants for the aforementioned offences, more particularly for offences under Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC and Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC as the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the act of kidnapping/abduction and has also failed to establish the demand of ransom as well as threat to life of the victim who was allegedly kidnapped and in absence of which, A-1 Manoj Sharma and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan both deserve to be acquitted of the offences under Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC and Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC, in light of the decisions of the v. Supreme Court in the matters of Neeraj Sharma

¶90

14 / 27

¶91

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶92

State of Haryana1 and William Stephen v. State of

¶93

Tamil Nadu and Others2 . He would further submit that the offences under Sections 342 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as offence under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act also have not been established beyond reasonable doubt against A-1 Manoj Sharma and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and even otherwise they have already undergone the sentences awarded thereunder.

¶94

10. Mr. Adil Minhaj, learned Counsel appearing for A-3 Aboni, A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti, would submit that as regards A-3 Aboni there is no evidence that he had demanded ransom and threatened to death to victim (PW-2) and as such his conviction for offences under Section 364 read with Section 120B of IPC and Section 120B read with Section 364 IPC and also for the other offences is not based on any cogent piece of evidence to sustain his conviction. So far as A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti are concerned, A-4 Malti is wife of A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-5 Priti is wife of A-1 Manoj Sharma and against them also there is no iota of evidence of their involvement in the offence and therefore their implication in the instant crime and

¶95

1 (2024) 3 SCC 125

¶96

2 (2024) 5 SCC 258

¶97

15 / 27

¶98

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶99

conviction for the said offences are also not based on evidence available on record. As such, A-3 Aboni, A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti all three are entitled for acquittal and their appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶100

11. Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, would however submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences against all the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has established the incriminating circumstances that A-1 Manoj Sharma was well acquainted with the victim (PW-2) and A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni had kidnapped the victim and demanded ransom of Rs.10 Lakh in lieu of his release from his wife (PW-1). From the possession of A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni, country made pistols and other incriminating materials have been recovered. One knife was also recovered from A-2 Abdul Sami Khan. From A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti, Adhar cards, PAN cards, Voter ID cards have seized. As such, all the Appellants have conspired together and committed the aforesaid offences and therefore they are not entitled for acquittal and their appeals are liable to be dismissed.

¶101

16 / 27

¶102

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶103

12. Countering the submission of learned State Counsel, Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for A-1 Manoj Sharma and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan, would submit that there was no allegation of knife injury and also the gun injury on the body of the victim and there is no forensic evidence to support that allegations against A-1 Manoj Sharma and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan.

¶104

13. We have heard learned Counsels appearing for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

¶105

:Discussion and Analysis

¶106

14. It is the case of the prosecution that A-2 Abdul Sami Khan wanted to take on rent the house of the victim (PW-2) and for that purpose he tried to meet the victim on 16.3.2017 at Raigarh but for some reason they could not meet. The next day i.e. on 17.3.2017, the victim for his official purpose visited the office of Chief Engineer at Raipur and at 3:30 p.m. he had gone to his Raipur situated house. Subsequently, around 5:15 p.m., he received a phone call made by A-2 Abdul Sami Khan from his afore-mentioned mobile number requesting the victim to come and

¶107

17 / 27

¶108

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶109

meet in his rented house to have dinner with his parents and for a discussion regarding the house which he was willing to take on rent from the victim. Thereafter, around 8:00 p.m., the victim left his home for Sapphire-Inn hotel where he again received the phone call made by A-2 Abdul Sami Khan who insisted the victim to receive him from the outside the said hotel and from where both the victim on his Activa scooty and A-2 Abdul Sami Khan on his motorcycle left for the subject house in which A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni confined the victim in a room guarded by A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti. A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni caused simple injuries to the victim. On 18.3.2017, the victim was rescued from the subject house as per recovery panchnama (Ex. P-11).

¶110

15. Taking into consideration the statement of PW-1 Sulbha Gupta (wife of the victim) and also the statement of the victim (PW-2 Sushil Kumar Gupta), learned Trial Court recorded the finding that A-2 Abdul Sami Khan firstly kidnapped the victim and thereafter demanded Rs.10 Lakh as ransom by using force and thus proceeded to convict him for offences under Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC,

¶111

18 / 27

¶112

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶113

Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC and also under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act.

¶114

16. So far as the conviction of the Appellants for offence under Section 364A of IPC is concerned, it would be appropriate at this juncture to notice Section 364A of IPC which states as under:-

¶115

“364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.─ Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or - international inter governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. ”

¶116

v. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Sharma

¶117

State of Chhattisgarh3 has considered the conditions

¶118

which must to be met for invoking Section 364A of IPC and held in paragraphs 34 to 37 as under:-

¶119

“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:

¶120

3 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 13

¶121

19 / 27

¶122

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶123

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; 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

¶124

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.

¶125

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.

¶126

36. In the present case, what the prosecution has 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.

¶127

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

¶128

20 / 27

¶129

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶130

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. ”

¶131

17. Recently, in the matter of William Stephen v. State

¶132

of Tamil Nadu and Another4 it has been held by Supreme Court alleged demand and threat has to be connected and observed in paragraphs 17 & 19 as under:-

¶133

17. However, the prosecution is not able to connect the alleged demand and the threat with both the accused. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 364-A IPC were not proved by the prosecution inasmuch as the prosecution failed to lead cogent evidence to establish the second part of Section 364-A about the threats given by the accused to cause death or hurt to such person.

¶134

18. In a given case, if the threats given to the parents or the close relatives of the kidnapped person by the accused are established, then a case can be made out that there was a reasonable apprehension that the person kidnapped may be put to death or hurt may be caused to him. However, in this case, the demand and threat by the accused have not been established by the prosecution.

¶135

18. Reverting to the facts of the case, in light of the decisions of Neeraj Sharma (supra) and William Stephen (supra), it has to be seen firstly whether

¶136

4 (2024) 5 SCC 258

¶137

21 / 27

¶138

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶139

there was act of kidnapping by the present Appellants and secondly whether there was demand of ransom coupled with threat to life to person (PW-2) which is absolutely necessary for convicting 4-5 persons for offence under Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC.

¶140

Kidnapping

¶141

19. The first ingredient necessary for offence under Section 364A of IPC is that there must be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction. In this regard, from the evidence of the victim (PW-2 Sushil Kumar Gupta) who was kidnapped, it is vividly clear that it is A-2 Abdul Sami Khan who wanted to take house of the victim on rent and for that purpose he had phone called the victim to come and have dinner in his house and while leaving the hotel he had kidnapped the victim and confined him in the subject house where A-1 Manoj Sharma and A-3 Aboni were also present and they had subjected the victim to some amount of torture. As such, the act of kidnapping seems to be done only by A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and the other Appellants

¶142

22 / 27

¶143

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶144

have been convicted for offence under Section 364A

¶145

only with the aid of Section 120B of IPC.

¶146

Demand of ransom

¶147

20. In this regard, the statement of PW-1 Sulbha Gupta (wife of the victim) may be noticed profitably in which she has stated that on 17.3.2017 her husband had left his house at 8:30 p.m. on her Activa scooty saying that he would return in a short while but when he did not come home till 11:00 p.m., she called him on his phone 4-5 times but it got disconnected and thereafter at 11:30 p.m. she received a phone call on her mobile number made by some unknown person from the mobile number of her husband and he threatened her that her husband has been kidnapped and in lieu of her husband’s release he demanded Rs.10 Lakh as ransom. Subsequently thereafter the said unknown person again called her, the information of which she had given to all of her family members and thereafter she also informed her family friend Rajkumar Dewangan who came to her house and the police was also informed regarding the matter and thereafter again a phone call came from the said unknown person while the matter was being informed to the police. As such, PW-1 Sulbha Gupta has not

¶148

23 / 27

¶149

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶150

named any of the accused persons demanding Rs.10 Lakh as ransom in lieu of release of her husband. From paragraph 15 of the statement of PW-1 Sulbha Gupta, it is clear that the recordings of the phone calls which she had received from unknown persons are available in the mobile phone of Rajkumar Dewangan, but the said recordings have not been brought on record. Further, from paragraph 21 of her statement also it is revealed that her husband had sent his mobile location on her phone, but she did not disclose it to anyone. Thus, from the statement of PW-1 Sulbha Gupta it does not establish that ransom calls demanding Rs.10 Lakh were made by any of the present accused persons on her mobile number.

¶151

21. As regards the victim PW-1 Sushil Kumar Gupta who was kidnapped, in paragraphs 1 to 3 of his statement he has stated about the entire incident of kidnapping and in paragraph 4 he has stated that A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni both had come to the room and caused injuries on different parts of his body by knife and tightened both of his legs. They also snatched his purse, mobile and cash of Rs.2-3 thousand. His SBI ATM card was also taken by them and on being asked by them, he had informed them

¶152

24 / 27

¶153

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶154

that he had currently around Two lakh & Ten thousand rupees in his account. As such, there seems to be no demand of ransom by any of the accused person as per paragraph 4 of the statement of the victim itself. In paragraph 6 of his statement, the victim has stated that PW-1 Manoj Sharma was also present in the subject house with his face covered by mask and he had also worn a cap. He tried to talk with PW-1 Manoj Sharma but he wrote a note in a piece of paper that he cannot talk. He kept asking him as to when he would be released then PW-1 Manoj Sharma gave him a written note in paper that he will be released when the demanded amount of Rs.10 Lakh will be paid to them. However, in his crossexamination, in paragraph 13, the victim has admitted that the said statement of demanding of Rs.10 Lakh in writing by the accused persons is missing in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC vide Ex. D-1 and he has also admitted that no papers or chit in which the notes were written demanding Rs. 10 Lakh were seized from the place of incident.

¶155

22. As such, there is absolutely no clear cut evidence that after kidnapping or detaining the victim, the accused

¶156

25 / 27

¶157

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶158

persons herein had demanded Rs.10 Lakh as ransom either from the victim (PW-2) or his wife (PW-1) and which the prosecution has miserably failed to establish.

¶159

23. Now, so far as threat to cause death to the victim is concerned, as per paragraph 4 of the statement of the victim (PW-2), A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni with the pointed tip of knife stabbed on the different parts of his body and had tightened both of his legs. However, after the rescue of the victim, he was subjected to medical examination and as per his medical report (not exhibited) which is at Page No.412 of Paper Book-II, only two abrasions were found on his left hand fingers i.e. one on middle finger and another one on ring finger and no stab or cut injuries were found on his body. The victim (PW-2) has only stated that A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni had shown him country made pistol (desi katta) but he did not state that they had threatened him to cause his death by use of said desi katta.

¶160

24. Thus, the main ingredient for offence under Section 364A of IPC that after kidnapping and detaining the victim, the three Appellants (A-1, A-2 & A-3) had

¶161

26 / 27

¶162

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶163

demanded ransom coupled with threat to life to the victim is not established beyond doubt.

¶164

25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis of the evidence of the two material witnesses i.e. the victim (PW-2 Sushil Kumar Gupta) and his wife (PW-1 Sulbha Gupta) as well as after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and also in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Neeraj Sharma (supra) and William Stephen (supra), we are of the considered opinion that no offence under Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC and Section 120B read with Section 364A of IPC is made out against the Appellants herein and the same are hereby set aside. Instead thereof, A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni are convicted for offence under Section 365 of IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Five years, which they are reported to have already undergone as they are in jail since 18.3.2017. However, the sentence awarded to A-1 Manoj Sharma, A-2 Abdul Sami Khan and A-3 Aboni for offences under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act are affirmed, as it

¶165

27 / 27

¶166

(Cr. A. Nos. 717, 624 & 606 of 2019)

¶167

is well merited. So far as A-4 Malti and A-5 Priti are concerned, their conviction and sentence for offence under Section 364-A read with Section 120B of IPC, Section 120B read with Section 364-A of IPC and Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC are also hereby set-aside, as there is no evidence against them at all. All the Appellants are reported to be in jail. We direct them to be released forthwith from jail, unless they are required in connection with any other offence.

¶168

26. Resultantly, we allow all three Criminal Appeals to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶169

27. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be

¶170

also served with a copy of this judgment, for information and necessary action, if any, at the earliest.

¶171

sharad

¶172

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶173

Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARADKUMAR YADAV KUMARYADAV Date:2024.11.3017:15:46 +0530

Manoj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Sharma 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Sadhumargi Shantkranti Jain

Grand Motors Vs Ito Ward 2(1)

Devi Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vinay Kumar Singh

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1(1), Bhilai Vs Vinay Kumar Singh

Dcit Circle 3(1), Cr Building , Civil Line Vs Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd.