Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Shankar Singh Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2026
2026:JHHC:11545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009
......
[Against the Judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti in S.T. No.181 of
2007 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.09 of 2007)]
......
Ravi Shankar Singh Munda, Son of Manmohan Singh Munda,
Resident of Sonahatu, P.S. Sonahatu, District - Ranchi.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
......
For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
JUDGMENT
Dated- 20.04.2026
1. Heard the arguments advanced by Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti in S.T. No. 181 of 2007 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 09 of 2007), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009 Page | 1 2026:JHHC:11545 under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two years with default stipulation.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 31.12.2006, accused Ravi Shankar Singh Munda took away two minor boys, namely, Pankaj Singh Munda (aged about 12 years) and Balram Singh Munda (aged about 11 years), on his Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-01N- 4364 on the pretext of purchasing shuttle cork. It is alleged that the accused had developed acquaintance with the boys 15-20 days prior to the occurrence by enticing them providing chocolates and toys. Thereafter, he took them towards Bazar Tand from Sonahatu village and subsequently absconded. Despite diligent search by the informant and his relatives, the boys could not be traced, giving rise to suspicion of kidnapping. It is further alleged that upon receiving information about the presence of the accused at Tetla village, the informant along with others reached there and found Ravi Shankar Singh (appellant) and Manmohan Singh Munda together gossiping with each other, who assured them of producing the boys but thereafter fled away Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009 Page | 2 2026:JHHC:11545 along with the accused. The informant has expressed grave suspicion that the missing children may have been done to death.
On the basis of above written report of the informant, Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 01 of 2007 was registered for the offences under Sections 363/364/365 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 364 and 365 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Case No. 181 of 2007 was registered. Charges were framed against accused persons under Sections 364/34, 365/34 and 363 of the I.P.C. which were read over and explained to them, to which they denied and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution.
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009 Page | 3
2026:JHHC:11545
7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the provision of Section 365 of the I.P.C. in the factual background of the present case. It is submitted that the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 363, 364 and 365 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The appellant has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court for the offence under Sections 363 and 364 of the I.P.C. on the basis of both the minor boys were taken away for purchasing shuttle cork with permission of their respective father and mother. In that view of the matter, no offence under Section 365 of the I.P.C. can be constituted because there is condition precedent to attract the said provision that there must be kidnapping or abduction of the child which condition is absolutely lacking as per the findings recorded by learned Trial Court itself. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 365 of the I.P.C. is not justifiable under law and liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009 Page | 4
2026:JHHC:11545
9. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant.
10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both parties.
11. It appears that the appellant who allegedly took away the two boys in pretext of purchasing shuttle cork has been found not guilty for the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. in as much as the lawful guardian of the minor boys have categorically admitted that they have accorded permission to the accused to proceed with them. Similarly, the learned Trial Court has recorded finding that no offence under Section 364 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellant and they were acquitted thereunder. The judgment clearly indicates that the victim children were not either kidnapped or abducted. In the above scenario the provision of Section 365 of the I.P.C. has to be appreciated which is extracted as under :-
"365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.-- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009 Page | 5 2026:JHHC:11545 confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Thus, for the punishment under Section 365 of IPC there must be :-
(i) Kidnapping or abduction of any person
(ii) Such kidnapping or abduction must be with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined.
12. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that one of the essential conditions for constituting the offence under Section 365 of the I.P.C. is that there must be kidnapping or abduction as condition precedent. In the instant case, the said vital condition is lacking. Therefore, the entire conclusion of the learned Trial Court appears to be unfounded and beyond the provision of law.
13. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
14. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009 Page | 6 2026:JHHC:11545 record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/04/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 24/04/2026 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 315 of 2009 Page | 7