Patna High Court
Sanjay Dubey & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 6 January, 2015
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2002
===================================================
1. Sanjay Dubey son of late Harihar Dubey,
2. Mritunjay Dubey @ Mritunjay Dubey son of late Harihar Duby
3. Nanda Dubey son of late Lala Dubey,
4. Kesho Dubey son of late Lala Dubey, All are residents of Village-
Ramgarh, P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt-Kaimur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 06-01-2015 For the purpose of dictating judgment when the record has minutely been gone through, it transpires that appellants have been charged for an offence punishable under Sections 364 IPC, however, they have been convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Sections 364 Appellant 120B IPC. Though, Sentence is of RI for ten years as well as fine appertaining to Rs.5,000/- under Section 364 A IPC while RI for five years under Section 120B of the IPC.
2. Section 364 A reads as follows:-
[364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such 2 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.]
3. On account thereof, there appears to be some sort of ambiguity prevailing in the judgment impugned. However, taking into account conviction recorded by the learned trial court, it looks desirable to have this appeal heard by a Division Bench instead of a Single Bench, as Section 364 (A) prescribes sentence beyond purview of single Bench, as allotted.
4. Accordingly, Office is directed to place this appeal before a Division Bench after obtaining necessary permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
Patna High Court
January 6th 2015
Perwez/
U T