LexGAURI MAHTO @ GAURI KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2122 : 2025 INSC 817 Gauri Mahto @ Gauri Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2016) 27 February 2025 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts of the case, prima-facie offence u/s.364-A, IPC against appellant is made out or not. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-A – Kidnapping for ransom, etc. – Offence u/s.364-A, if prima-facie made out against appellant: Held: No – No investigation was conducted to determine whether the house from where the child (PW-12) was recovered belonged to appellant or not – Appellant was not identified either by the father (PW-13) of the child or the child himself – No cogent evidence regarding any ransom demand made by the appellant – Furthermore, the child in his testimony did not depose anything to the effect that appellant had threatened him to cause death or hurt – Prosecution’s case suffers with infirmities and creates serious doubt insofar as the involvement of appellant in the present crime is concerned – It failed to prove conditions together as envisaged u/s.364-A, in particular, paragraph 33 of the judgment of this Court in Shaik Ahmed case – Judgment of sentence and conviction passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, confirmed in appeal by the High Court, set-aside. [Paras 12-14, 15] Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-A – Kidnapping for ransom, etc. – Three essential ingredients – Discussed. [Para 10] Words and Phrases – ‘and’ after the first condition in s.364-A, Penal Code, 1860 – Significance, stated. [Para 10] Case Law Cited Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana [2021] 6 SCR 462 : (2021) 9 SCC 59 – relied on. * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2123 Gauri Mahto @ Gauri Kumar v. The State of Bihar List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Section 364-A of Penal Code, 1860; Kidnapping for ransom; Conditions under Section 364-A of Penal Code, 1860; Loot; Child Kidnapped; Ransom note; No ransom demand; No threat to cause death or hurt to the child. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2016 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2015 of the High Court of Patna in CRLAP No. 1051 of 2009 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ms. Tasmiya Taleha. Advs. for the Respondent: Samir Ali Khan, Anil Kumar Verma. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2015, for the offence under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1051 of 2009 confirming the judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barh, in Sessions Trial No. 1046 of 2004, the present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in case of default, further sentence of three months. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, on 24.10.2002 at about 8.30 p.m., three unknown accused persons armed with deadly 2124 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports weapons stormed into the house of Rajendra Kumar (the informant, PW-13) and committed loot taking away some cash and golden ornaments. In the said incident, they also tied the informant and his wife Suma Kumari (PW-15) and kidnapped their elder child namely Unnat Raj (PW-12), aged eight years with a threat to kill the boy in case the informant raised any hue and cry or inform the police. As alleged, the accused persons also left a ransom note demanding Rs. 6 lacs to be delivered near Rampur Dumra station by 30.10.2002, failing which, the boy would be killed. 3. It is further the case of prosecution that while leaving, the accused persons confined the informant and his wife in separate rooms bolting the doors from outside. The informant somehow freed himself and rushed to the roof, wherefrom he saw the accused persons under the streetlight fleeing away with the child. On the said basis, FIR was lodged and during course of investigation, present appellant along with 6 other accused persons namely Sudhir Mahto, Diwakar Yadav, Dayanand Mahto, Pramod Kumar, Dhurba Yadav and Awdhesh Yadav @ Gama Yadav were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 364A/395/120(B)/34 of IPC. The trial was conducted and present appellant along with one Sudhir Mahto was convicted for offence under Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.