Ameer Ahmad v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against conviction for kidnapping. Court held absence of ransom demand and clinching evidence justified acquittal. Appeal allowed; prior conviction set aside; bail bonds cancelled.
What did the court decide?
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; prisoner entitled to acquittal; bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2006
Ameer Ahmad ….. Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Sachin Panwar, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble R. C. Khulbe, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Jude Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Session Trial No.55A of 2001, State Vs. Ameer Ahmad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 364 IPC sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven years.
- Factual matrix of the case are that when the informant Vasant Kumar was going to drop his son Piyush Bansal, aged 12 years to St. Mary’s School on his motorcycle on 12.10.2000 at 07:30 a.m., an unnumbered Maruti van hit his motorcycle near sugar mill gate. Informant’s motorcycle lost balance and fell down. Blue coloured Maruti van was being driven by Suresh Kumar. Karam Singh, Chhota Musalman and Bijendra Jatav were sitting in the Maruti van. All of them caught informant’s son Piyush, threw his bag and dragged the victim inside the van and Maruti van speedily ran towards Nandpur-nar-ka-topa. In the meantime, Jai Bhagwan, Raje Kumar Gupta and Tilak Raj Sharma came and they tried to stop the van but to no avail. Chik FIR (Ex. Ka-13) was lodged on 12.10.2000 at 09:30 a.m. The
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution could establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the instigator of the kidnapping.
Whether the absence of a clear ransom demand and lack of identification evidence warrants acquittal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ameer Ahmad
- respondent
State of Uttarakhand
Coram
R. C. Khulbe
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Uttarakhand HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLA/185/2006
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court