Conviction U/S 364A IPC Requires Proof Of Abduction With Ransom Demand & Life Threat: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that no conviction can be made out under Section 364A of IPC unless it is proved by the prosecution that abduction was coupled with ransom demand and life threat. A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed this while acquitting two accused convicted by the trial court in 2022 under Sections 364A, 343 and 323/34 of the IPC. The case in brief The appellants, Yogesh Sahu and Nandu, were accused of abducting the complainant, Bhagwanta. The prosecution alleged that the complainant was held hostage by the appellants, who instructed him to tell his (complainant) wife to obtain the remaining amount of 6 lakh rupees from Ghazi Khan. Khan had allegedly purchased a truck from appellant Yogesh Sahu but had not paid the full promised amount. The Complainant was allegedly kept tied with a chain inside the room, and his wife was asked to get money from Khan, and only then would the complainant be released. Accused Yogesh also sent the photo of the complainant's hands and feet tied on the mobile phone of his wife. The trial Court in May 2023, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants to life imprisonment. Challenging their conviction, the accused-appellants moved the High Court, arguing that there was no allegation that the appellants demanded any ransom, and the evidence showed that they detained the complainant only to take his money back from Ghazi Khan. The counsel for the appellants argued that prosecution witness Ghazi Khan (PW-3) specifically stated that the complainant was not abducted. He asserted that Bhagwanta and the appellants were friends and that, due to their friendship, they fabricated the abduction story to recover money from him. It was further contended that this was not a case of ransom, as the appellants never called the complainant's wife to demand any payment in exchange for releasing her husband. The counsel suggested that it is possible the complainant and the appellants devised a plan to recover the remaining amount from Ghazi Khan. Therefore, it was submitted that the conclusions and findings of the trial court were based on presumptions and conjecture. High Court's observations Analysing the statements of the witnesses as well as the record of the entire case, the Court noted that from a perusal of the evidence of the complainant itself, it was clear that there was no allegation that appellant Yogesh Sahu, along with one co-accused, had demanded any ransom. The court also considered the evidence indicating that the complainant was detained only because he had helped sell appellant Yogesh Sahu's truck to Khan, who had not paid the full amount owed. Consequently, appellant Yogesh Sahu and co-accused Nandu detained the complainant only to recover the remaining money from Khan. “…it is not a case of ransom because the appellants have not called her to pay ransom from her in lieu of leaving her husband and it is possible that her husband and the appellants have made planning to receive the rest of the amount of the truck from Gazi khan,” the Court noted. Given this, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the offence under Section 364A of the IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Court examined the facts of the case to determine if the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 343 of the IPC (wrongful confinement). The Court noted that there was no evidence of wrongful confinement by the appellants as it was admitted that the complainant travelled with the appellants to so many crowded places, but he neither resisted nor tried to call anyone for his help. Further, the Court found that all the injuries the complainant sustained were simple and could have been caused by slipping or falling down on the vehicle. Given this, determining that there was no ingredient of voluntarily causing hurt, the Court opined that the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for an offence under Section 323 of the IPC. For the foregoing reasons, the appellants' conviction and sentence under Sections 364A, 343, and 323/34 of the IPC was set aside, and their appeal was allowed. Case title - Yogesh Sahu and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 16 Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder

Conviction U/S 364A IPC Requires Proof Of Abduction With Ransom Demand & Life Threat: Chhattisgarh High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags