Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna @ Kiran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
T H E H I G H C O U R T O F MAD H YA PRAD E S H
B E N C H AT I N D O R E
[D.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia & Hon'ble Shri Justice
Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ.]
Criminal Appeal No.573/2011
Appellant: [email protected] Lakshminarayan S/o- Badrilal,
(In-jail) Age-23 years, R/o- Village Kumada,
P.S. Machalpur, District-Rajgarh (M.P.)
Versus
Respondent: State of M.P.
through P.S.- Neelganga,
District- Ujjain (M.P.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant (s) : Ms. Sharmilla Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Shrey Raj Saxena, Dy. A.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal No.95/2012
Appellant: [email protected] Kiran W/o Laxminarayan
(in jail) Age- 24, Occupation- Housewife
R/o- Village Kumada, P.S. Machalpur,
District-Rajgarh (M.P.)
Versus
Respondent: State of M.P.
through P.S.- Neelganga,
District- Ujjain (M.P.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate, (Legal Aid.)
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Shrey Raj Saxena, Dy. A.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Indore:- Dated:-22.02.2022
PER VIVEK RUSIA, J:-
The appeal is listed on the application for suspension of sentence
filed by the appellant-Guddu but with the consent of both the parties both
appeals are heard finally.
Both the appellants have been convicted under section 364(A) of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in
default of payment additional 2 months R.I. vide judgment dated 23.03.2011
in Sessions Trial No.421/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Ujjain.
2. The prosecution story of this case in short is as under: -
(a). On 10.06.2010 Kiran a friend of Savitri Bai came to her house and
- : 2 :-
took daughter Ku. Chetna aged about 4 ½ years old with her. Since Ku.
Chetna did not return, till night Smt. Savitri Bai lodged a missing person
report at police station Neelganga which was recorded as Missing Person
Report no.73/2010 (Exhibit P/8). A.R. Khan, inspector (P.W.-13) has started
the investigation by registering an FIR at crime no.525/2010 (Exhibit P/10).
During the investigation, I/O Jairam Chouhan P.W.-18 had a conversation
with accused Guddu on his mobile and he informed that he boarded Chetna
in the bus to drop her at Machalpur. The I/O reached the Machalpur and
recovered Ku. Chetna from the possession of Ram Chandra Bairagi vide
recovery memo P/2. The statement of witnesses was recorded under section
161 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter these appellants were arrested on
17.07.2010 vide arrest memo Exb.P/14 and 15. The police recovered mobile
phone model No. Nokia 1600 from [email protected] Lakshminarayan. Another
mobile was recovered from Rajesh @Raju and call details were obtained
from the service provider vide Exhibit P/12, 13, 18 and 19. The Ku. Chetna
was handed over to her father Rahul Meena vide Exhibit P/4. Upon
completing the investigation charge sheet was filed before JMFC on
06.10.2010. The trial was committed to the sessions court on 03.11.2010.
The appellants denied the charges and pleaded their false implication on the
ground that Rahul had borrowed Rs.40,000/- from Kiran due to which a
dispute arose between them hence they have been falsely implicated in this
case.
(b). In order to prove the charges the prosecution has examined 18
witnesses out of which Mangilal P.W.-1, Nanuram P.W.-7, Badrilal P.W.-8
did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared as a
hostile witnesses. Even the seizure witnesses have turned hostile.
(c). The appellants have been convicted only on the basis of the statement
of Rahul (P.W.-4) and Savitri Bai (P.W.-11) i.e. father and mother of the
abducted child. The prosecution has also examined Chetna as P.W.-3 who
has deposed that she was abducted by these appellants. Savitri Bai P.W.-11
has stated that she had a talk with Guddu and Kiran and they demanded
rupees two lacs for releasing Chetna. On the basis of the aforesaid statement
and the call details collected by the police, appellants have been convicted
under section 364(A) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Life
- : 3 :-
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment additional 2
months R.I. vide judgment dated 23.03.2011. hence these two criminal
appeals:-
3. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellants submit that even
if the entire prosecution case is accepted as it is then the offence will not
travel more than section 363 of the IPC in which the maximum sentence
prescribed is of seven years. These appellants are in jail for more than 12
years. The appellants have been wrongly convicted under section 364(A) of
the IPC because in order to attract the provisions there has to be a
kidnapping or abduction and threat to cause death or hurt to such person. In
this case, neither Ku. Chetna has stated that she was hurt and neither her
father nor mother have deposed that any threat was given to cause death to
their daughter if the ransom was not paid. There was no reasonable
apprehension to the father and mother of the girl that she may be put to
death, or hurt or cause hurt in order to compel them to pay the ransom.
Hence the conviction may kindly be altered from section 364(A) of the IPC
to section 363 of the IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment be reduced
from the period already been undergone by the appellants and they be
released from the jail.
4. Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State
opposes the prayer but admits that it is not the case of the prosecution that
Chetna was hurt or threatened to cause death in case of non-payment of
ransom.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. Chetna has been examined as P.W.-3 in her deposition she simply says
that appellants boarded her in the bus and took her to the forest and when the
police recovered her only Kiran was there and appellant Guddu was not
there. She has not stated that she was hurt by these appellants. Rahul P.W.-4
father of Chetna in para-3 of his deposition has said that demand of rupees
two lacs was made by the appellants otherwise daughter would not release
her. He has nowhere stated that the appellants have threatened that due to
non-payment of ransom she will be put to death and he was also not stated
that he was having apprehension that appellant will cause death in non-
- : 4 :-
payment of ransom. Likewise, Savitri Bai P.W.-11 mother of the Chetna has
stated that only demand of rupees of two lacs was made.
6. Therefore, in view of the above, we are in the considered opinion that
appellants have wrongly been convicted under section 364(A) of the IPC by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the basis of evidence collected by
the prosecution, they are liable to be punished under section 363 of the IPC.
They have already undergone sentences more than the maximum sentence
prescribed under section 363 of the IPC. Hence the appeal is partly allowed
and the sentence is reduced from Life Imprisonment to the period already
undergone by the appellants and the appellants be released from jail if they
are not required in any other case.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
Ajit/-
AJIT
Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001,
KAMALAS
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed6cba
241effad892107d95ef0a1afc55b4,
pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D61A1E
E901C09EF29,
ANAN
serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F3247441C8
7E7E0817FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9FF,
cn=AJIT KAMALASANAN
Date: 2022.02.23 19:30:33 +05'30'
