In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has underscored the necessity of proving both a ransom demand and a life threat to secure a conviction under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, acquitted Yogesh Sahu and Narendra Bomarde, who were previously convicted by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, under Section 364A, 343, and 323/34 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on April 3, 2022, when the complainant, Bhagwanta Sahu, alleged that he was abducted by Yogesh Sahu and Narendra Bomarde. According to the prosecution, the appellants took Bhagwanta under the pretext of showing him a vehicle and subsequently detained him, demanding that his wife secure the remaining money owed by Ghazi Khan for a truck sold by Yogesh Sahu. The trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 364A, along with additional sentences under Sections 343 and 323/34 of the IPC.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 364A of the IPC, which pertains to kidnapping for ransom. The section mandates that for a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the abduction was coupled with a ransom demand and a threat to the victim’s life.
Court’s Decision
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements required under Section 364A. Specifically, it noted that there was no concrete evidence of a ransom demand or a life threat to the complainant.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, delivering the judgment, stated, “The prosecution has failed to bring home the offence under Section 364A of the IPC against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 364A of the IPC by recording findings which are wholly perverse to record.”
The court further elaborated that mere detention or abduction without a clear ransom demand and life threat does not fulfill the criteria for a conviction under Section 364A. The court also highlighted the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which further weakened the case.
Important Observations
The court made several critical observations during the judgment:
1. Lack of Ransom Demand: The court noted that the complainant’s wife was not explicitly asked to pay a ransom for his release, which is a crucial element for a conviction under Section 364A.
2. Contradictory Testimonies: The testimonies of key witnesses, including the complainant and his wife, were found to be inconsistent and contradictory, casting doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Absence of Life Threat: The court emphasized that there was no substantial evidence to prove that the complainant’s life was threatened during the alleged abduction.
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: CRA No. 1234 of 2023
– Appellants: Yogesh Sahu and Narendra Bomarde
– Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh
– Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Sachin Singh Rajput
– Lawyers: Mr. B.P. Singh for Appellant No.1, Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav for Appellant No.2, and Mr. Pankaj Singh for the Respondent/State
