#IPC Archives - Page 3 of 8

26 Jan

Section 364A IPC Requires Proof of Abduction Coupled with Ransom Demand and Life Threat for Conviction: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #Abduction, #IPC, #kidnapping, #LifeThreat, #ransom, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019

Decided on: 3^rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court received two appeals challenging the High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction order of the Trial Court. The appellants had been found guilty under Sections 307, 120B, 364-A, 392, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 364A. Notably, the third accused was acquitted by the Trial Court. According to the prosecution, the appellants kidnapped a Class 12th student with the intention of demanding ransom, and during the incident, they attempted to kill him. Despite suffering severe injuries, the victim managed to escape, resulting in the amputation of his right leg. The accused had lured the victim, who was staying as a paying guest, for a motorcycle ride but later assaulted him, attempting to strangle him. Believing him to be dead, the accused poured petrol on him, set him on fire, and looted his mobile phone and cash. Miraculously, the victim survived, escaped, and sought medical assistance, leading to police intervention.

Issue

The main issue is the conviction of appellants for abduction, attempted murder, and ransom demand, leading to life imprisonment, with a key legal question about the sufficiency of evidence.

Legal Provision

Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an offence where kidnapping or abduction is made and a person is put to death or hurt; or a person is threatened with death or actually murdered, on demand of ransom.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that an offense under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) does not apply if kidnapping or abduction occurs without any ransom demand. The Court resolved an appeal challenging the High Court’s affirmation of the conviction order by the Trial Court under Sections 307, 120B, 364-A, 392, and 397 of the IPC. It noted the prosecution’s failure to prove the existence of a ransom call, leading to the conclusion that the accused cannot be held liable under Section 364A IPC. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that Section 364A involves kidnapping or abduction resulting in a person’s death or harm, or a threat of death or murder upon a ransom demand.

The Court referred to the case of Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana [(2021) 9 SCC 59], highlighting three conditions to establish an offense under Section 364A. First, there must be a kidnapping or abduction. Second, there should be a threat of death or harm to the person, or the accused’s conduct must reasonably indicate such a threat. Third, the act must aim to compel the government, foreign state, intergovernmental organization, or any other person to perform or abstain from an act or pay a ransom.

The Court observed that the victim did not mention any ransom demand during examination, and the only mention in a supplementary police statement lacked substantial evidence. The Court criticized the Trial Court and High Court for overlooking this critical flaw in Section 364A evidence. It corrected the High Court’s characterization of the supplementary statement as a “dying declaration,” clarifying it as a statement under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

The Bench partially allowed the appeals, changing the Section 364A conviction to Section 364 IPC with a ten-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the accused. The remaining convictions under Sections 307, 120B, 392, and 397 IPC were upheld, along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- directed to be paid to the victim under Section 357A of CrPC. The Court thus disposed of the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

23 Jan

Civil disputes cannot be resolved through the criminal prosecution: Supreme Court of India.

Prime Legal

Blog #Cheating, #CivilDispute, #CriminalConspiracy, #CriminalProsecution, #IPC, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Jay Shri v. The State of Rajasthan

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. _ of 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14423 of 2023)

Decided on: 19th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

Facts of the Case

The accused individuals were accused of entering into a sales agreement with the complainant, receiving Rs. 80 Lacs, and subsequently failing to complete the registration or refund the money. Consequently, an FIR was filed against them under Sections 420 and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal challenging the order issued by the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, the accused sought anticipatory bail from the High Court. In their plea, among other arguments, they asserted that the matter pertained to a breach of contract and fell within the domain of civil disputes. Despite their contentions, the High Court rejected their bail plea, prompting them to file the current appeal.

Issue

The matter at hand involves assessing the practice of employing criminal prosecution as a means to settle disputes that are purely of a civil nature.

Legal Provision

Section 420 in the Indian Penal Code deals with Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code makes it a punishable offence for a person to be a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence that is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court made a preliminary observation stating that a mere violation of a contract does not constitute an offense of cheating or breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intent.

Furthermore, the Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, disapproved of the transformation of purely civil disputes into criminal cases. Drawing on the precedent set in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, the Court emphasized that any attempt to resolve civil disputes and claims, devoid of any criminal wrongdoing, by exerting pressure through criminal prosecution should be criticized and discouraged.

After careful consideration, the Court found merit in the appellants’ request for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court approved their bail, explicitly stating that the observations made during this decision should not influence the final determination of the case.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

9 Jan

The Bombay HC orders interrogation on advocate for fraudulent activities while issuing bail.

Prime Legal

Blog #Anticipatorybail, #bombayhc, #IPC, #law, #murder

TITLE : Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sarang V. Kotwal

DATE : 3^rd January 2024

CITATION : Anticipatory bail application No. 3699 of 2023

FACTS

The applicant was seeking anticipatory bail under Section 420, 466 ,465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. The offence committed was considered to be extremely serious. The main offence was punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The applicant is a lawyer who has assured the informant of the crime that a bail would be granted and took Rs.65000 as fees. The presiding officer upon receiving application has given bail for Rs.25000. Subsequenlty, the amount was paid by the informant. The prison officials at thane told the informant that the envelope did not contain the receipt for 25000 and the documents were incomplete. The applicant then sent another envelope which was not returned for. The same was done for twice again. Upon enquiry, the informant realized she was being cheated by the applicant.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 466 of IPC :

Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.

Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

ISSUES

Whether the applicant is guilty of the offence under Section 466 of IPC

JUDGEMENT

The court disagreed with the contentions of the counsel of the applicant that there was no fraudulent intention. “In fact, her act cannot be described in any other manner but ‘dishonest’ and ‘fraudulent’. The court said that the informant could have pursued the bail application of her husband accordance with law.

The court stated that being an advocate the applicant must not have cheated the informant and held that no leniency can be shown. The court further observed that there might be a strong possibility of a continuous offence and ordered for custodial interrogation against the applicant.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

29 Dec

Investigating authority needs to seek permission with the magistrate to investigate non cognizable offences under Section 155(2) of CrPC : Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #CrPc, #IPC, #law, #legalnews

TITLE : Nitin Shivdas Satpute V The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Anil L Pansare

DATE : 22nd December, 2023

CITATION : CrWP. No 660 of 2022

FACTS

The petitioner is a librarian in a college and the 2nd respondent is the principal of the college. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent is a habitual user of abusive and filthy language against the staff of the college. The petitioner along with other staff had complained regarding the same to the vice chancellor. Being annoyed at such complaint, the respondent had called the petitioners to his chambers and abused him verbally and threatened him to murder the petitioner and passing derogatory comments against his wife. He then lodged a complaint against the respondent under Section 504 and 506 of IPC.

The petitioner before the magistrate pleaded that the offence in hand was put under the category of non-cognizable offence when the nature of the offence attracted cognizable offence under Section 200 of CrPC. The magistrate issued process against the respondent for offences under Section 294, 504 and 506 of IPC. The sessions judge set aside the order.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 294 of IPC :

“294. Obscene acts and songs. – Whoever, to the annoyance of others –

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both

Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure :

No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial

ISSUES

Whether the sessions judge erred in claiming principal’s office is not a public place?
Whether there is sufficient jurisdiction to seek for magistrate’s permission to investigate the offence.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the principal’s chamber is a public place since it is situated in the campus building where the students, teachers and staff and other persons relating to the college have access to the building. Secondly, the derogatory remarks pertaining to the petitioners wife is regarded to be obscene in nature. The statement shames the dignity and modesty of the petitioner’s wife.

The court held that the sessions judge has erred in holding the position that no other person was present in the chambers when the incident occurred.

As far as the jurisdictional issue is concerned, the petitioner has two options to ensure an investigation is done under either Section 155(2) of CrPC or Section 200 of CrPC as the offence is non-cognizable nature. The court further held that in certain circumstances it is necessary to seek permission of the magistrate in investiagating non-cognizable offences under Section 155(2) of the code.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

20 Dec

Appellant cannot claim lack of evidence in a murder trial when there are multiple witnesses proving otherwise : Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #bonbayhc, #IPC, #law, #murder, #SEction302

TITLE : Santosh Gunaji Dudhmal v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

DATE : 19^th December, 2023

CITATION : Criminal Appeal No 152 of 2019

FACTS

An appeal was filed against the Additional Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default of set rigorous imprisonment of one month. The accused was alleged of murder on the instance because of a dispute that arose between the deceased and him. It was contended by the appellant that there is no convincing evidence and motive was not sufficient.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 302 of IPC states that :

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

ISSUES

Whether the Additional Sessions judge passed an order for conviction of murder through lack of evidence?

JUDGEMENT

The autopsy surgeon was considered to be the best witness and evidence. The doctor noted that the injuries occurred are not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to occur. It was also observed that the informant had contradicting statements as a witness. Further it was noted that the wife of the deceased herself was not cooperating with the narrative of the prosecution. However, the court held that reason for her hostility to be that of the shock of losing her husband. One of the independent witnesses were also in the vicinity of the location when the murder occurred.

In lieu all of the statements passed by the witnesses, the court dismissed the appeal claiming that there was sufficient evidence to prove the appellant has actually committed the act of murder.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 4 5 … 8