Partly allowed

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2026Cr.A(SJ)/1408/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 366A IPC for kidnapping a minor college student. The High Court held the evidence proved kidnapping under Section 363 but not procuration, set aside the 366A conviction, convicted under Section 363, and reduced the sentence to period already undergone, partly allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under S.366A IPC set aside; appellant held guilty under S.363 IPC with sentence of imprisonment already undergone (1 year 8 months 24 days).

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:20869

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1408 of 2005

¶3

……

¶4

[Against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 6^th , Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.245 of 2002]

¶5

……

¶6

Anil Kumar Singh, Son of Ramdeo Singh, resident of Mohalla Hospital Colony, Jitpur, P.S. – Jora Pokhar, District – Dhanbad.

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim 'X' … Respondents ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Adv. For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Dated - 13.07.2026

¶13

By Court:- Heard Mr. Deepak Sahu, learned counsel appearing for

¶14

the appellant as well as Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶15

2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 6^th , Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.245

¶16

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005

¶17

Page | 1

¶18

2026:JHHC:20869

¶19

of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for seven years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

¶20

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 08.12.2001 at about 8:15 a.m., daughter (aged about 17 years) of the informant Phagu Mistri, had gone to attend her classes at S.S.L.N.T. College, Dhanbad, but did not return home till the evening. Thereafter, the informant, along with his family members, made a search for her. During the course of search, he came to know that his daughter had allegedly been forcibly kidnapped by accused Anil Kumar Singh for the purpose of marriage. It is further alleged that about three months prior to the occurrence, the accused had misbehaved with the victim, whereupon she had strongly protested. Owing to such protest, the accused allegedly threatened her with dire consequences and vowed to take revenge. On these allegations, the informant suspected that Anil Kumar Singh had kidnapped his daughter and accordingly reported in writing to Police Station.

¶21

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005 Page | 2

¶22

2026:JHHC:20869

¶23

On the basis of above written report, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.643 of 2001 was registered for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. against the accused appellant.

¶24

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charge was framed against the accused appellant which was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶25

5. In the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution.

¶26

6. On the other hand, no oral as well as documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

¶27

7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order

¶28

has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.

¶29

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim girl herself has not stated in her evidence that she

¶30

was taken away by the present appellant for forcibly solemnizing marriage with her rather there is simple

¶31

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005

¶32

Page | 3

¶33

2026:JHHC:20869

¶34

allegation that when she was returning from her collage at about 03:30 p.m., the present appellant in pretext of helping her in hiring the vehicle, got boarded on a tracker and brought to Jhariya and thereafter Patna on 08.12.2001. On 12.12.2001, she was brought back to Dhanbad where she met with Satish Bhaiya and seeing Satish, accused had ran away then she was taken to Police Station. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate wherein also she has not stated about any physical relationship or she was forced by the appellant for solemnizing marriage with him. Therefore, offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. which is related to procuration of minor girls, is absolutely not applicable in this case. At best, the case comes under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and the appellant has remained 1 year 8 months and 24 days in custody, therefore, sufficiently punished. It is further submitted that occurrence is of the year 2001 and on the date of evidence of the victim during trial, she has admitted that her marriage has been solemnized with one Jogendra Rana. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under

¶35

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005

¶36

Page | 4

¶37

2026:JHHC:20869

¶38

Section 366A of the I.P.C. is liable to be set aside. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

¶39

9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the above contentions and defended the impugned judgment on merits and submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly analyzed and appreciated the evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This appeal has no merit and fits to be dismissed.

¶40

10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record.

¶41

11. It appears that altogether eight witnesses were examined, out of whom P.W.5 (victim), P.W.6 (informantfather), P.W.7 (Investigating Officer) and P.W.8 (doctor) are material witnesses. P.W.5 consistently deposed that the appellant intercepted her outside the college, threatened to kill her parents and took her to Jharia and thereafter to Patna, where she remained till her recovery on 12.12.2001 and her

¶42

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005

¶43

Page | 5

¶44

2026:JHHC:20869

¶45

testimony is duly corroborated by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.1). P.W.6 proved that the victim was below eighteen years of age by producing her school admit card showing her date of birth as 22.05.1985 and established that she was taken away without the consent of her lawful guardian. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 consistently corroborated the disappearance of the victim, the prior threats extended by the appellant and her subsequent recovery. While P.W.7 proved the investigation and recovery of the victim. Though P.W.8 found no external injury, but her evidence does not belie the prosecution case of kidnapping. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant kidnapped a minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of Section 366A of the I.P.C.

¶46

Section 363 of the I.P.C. held as under:-

¶47

" 363. Punishment for kidnapping.—

¶48

Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of

¶49

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005

¶50

Page | 6

¶51

2026:JHHC:20869

¶52

either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. "

¶53

12. Therefore, in the instant case, the ingredients of offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. are not fulfilled. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances, the appellant is held guilty for the offence under 363 of the I.P.C. in kidnapping of a minor girl.

¶54

13. So far as sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of the occurrence as well as the overt act attributed against the appellant and also in view of the fact that more than two and a half decades have been elapsed from the date of occurrence and custody sustained by the appellant for 1 year 8 months and 24 days, it appears that appellant has sufficiently been punished. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant is also reduced and he is awarded sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶55

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005

¶56

Page | 7

¶57

2026:JHHC:20869

¶58

14. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above.

¶59

15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶60

16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.

¶61

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶62

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 13/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 15/07/2026

¶63

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1408 of 2005

¶64

Page | 8

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wakil Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Azad Mian Vs State of Jharkhand

Mohan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Saw Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Wakil Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramashray Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand