Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.577 of 2005 ======================================================== 1. GOVIND RAM SON OF LATE MATUR RAM 2. JALENDRA PASWAN @ JAINENDRA PASWAN SON OF GOVIND RAM BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MANORA TOLE GULJAR BIGHA, P.S.- OBRA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD…………...... APPELLANT/S VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR……………..... ......................... RESPONDENT/S WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 691 OF 2005 ======================================================== DULAR CHAND YADAV SON OF LATE PARIKH YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SONI, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD………………...... ........................... APPELLANT/S VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR………………………………….... .... RESPONDENT/S WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 696 OF 2005 ======================================================== SHEO YADAV SON OF LATE JAGDISH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KARMA, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD……………….... …………………….... APPELLANT/S VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR…………………………………… .... RESPONDENT/S ======================================================== Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th and 6th September, 2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2004/10 of 2005 by Shri Mahatam Prasad, Ist Additional Sessions, Judge, Aurangabad ======================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bachanjee Ojha, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar-6, Advocate For the Respondent/s :Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 24-08-2012 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2005 dt.24-08-2012 2 Above noted appeals have arisen out of common judgment, so they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants named above have preferred the instant appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th and 6th September, 2005 passed in Sessions Trial no. 346 of 2004/10 of 2005 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad whereby the appellants were convicted under [STATUTE] and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under [STATUTE] each and rigorous imprisonment for ten years under [STATUTE] . All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Kangress Singh and Mangal Singh were also put on trial along with the appellants but they were not found guilty and they were acquitted. 4. Informant (PW 9 ) Suresh Sao had his permanent board at village Kushi Karma P.S.- Mufassil, District- Aurangabad but since last preceding three years he has settled himself in his own house at Jineriya More where he was trading in rice. In the fateful night of 14.7.2003 at 11.00 PM, the informant had to give his fard-beyan (Ext. 3) after the dacoits looted and abducted his son. On 14.7.2003 the informant has sold one truck rice for Rs. 52,000/- in favour of Ramayodhya Sao (PW 2 hostile). After loading Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2005 dt.24-08-2012 3 of the rice at 7.00 PM the informant was discussing about the sale proceed of the day with Suba Lal Singh (PW 7), Bindeshwar Singh (not examined) and Bijay Singh (not examined). Satyendra Singh (not examined) had also there to get his money. Anantu Sao (PW 5) had been there for exchanging the currency. The lantern and earthen lamp were burning. At 10.00 PM, 4-5 criminals came there. Dularchand Yadav (appellant), Manoj Singh, Shiv Yadav (appellant) were identified. They were armed with pistol. On the threat of pistol the informant and others were compelled to take shelter in their houses. Shiv Yadav snatched the ear rings from the informant’s wife. The accused persons later on forced the informant and others to go inside the house. Manoj Singh gave a lathi blow to the informant. Subsequently the accused persons took away rupees fifty two thousand. One of the accused was being named as Prem Yadav of black complexion. Firing was resorted by Dularchand Yadav. Again Dularchand Yadav tried to load and aimed at the informant but the informant jumped himself out. On cry of the informant, Sudarsan Sao (PW 4) came but he was assaulted by the accused Shiv Yadav. At the time of leaving the place of occurrence the informant’s son Sudhir Kumar aged 15 years was taken away. The informant claimed identification in the light of lantern, earthen light and torch light. Motive of the occurrence was that Kamlesh Yadav another rice dealer was not liking the informant to carry on similar business. Ramayodhya Sao (PW 2) earlier was the customer of Kamlesh but he shifted to the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2005 dt.24-08-2012 4 side of the informant. The aforesaid fard-beyan of PW 9 witnessed by Sudarshan Sao (PW 4) which resulted into formal FIR (Ext. 5) and case vide Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 130 of 2003 under [STATUTE] was registered. In course of investigation, the letters written by Sudhir Kumar were exhibited as Ext. 1/1 and cartridge was seized for which seizure list (Ext. 4) was prepared. Third letter to the informant by the accused was marked as Ext. 2/2. Statement of Sudhir Kumar under section 164 Cr.P.C. was marked as Ext. 6. After completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed and explained to the accused to which they pleaded their innocence and the trial proceeded. 5. The defence of the accused is of false implication at the behest of prosecution party due to business rivalry. 6. The trial court after considering the defence and after hearing the statements of the witnesses, came to the conclusi

Applicable IPC Section: 364A

Statute Text:
Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.