Shaik Ismail vs The State Of Telengana And 5 Others on 17 June, 2020
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants/convicts that from the available
evidence, it can be gathered safely that prosecution failed to
established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In support of
submissions, it is submitted that though victim/PW 5 rescued by
the police personnels, F.I.R. was lodged on the next day of the
recovery and moreover, same was communicated to learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate after 48 hours, which creates a
suspicion about entire occurrence as narrated through F.I.R. It is
submitted that no demand of ransom can be said proved as the
father of victim, namely, Dilip Kumar Sinha was not examined
before the learned Trial Court and even the cheat of paper
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.398 of 2016 dt.16-05-2023
12/40
through which alleged demand of ransom of Rs. 20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lac) was made, not collected during the course
of investigation. It is submitted that PW -5, who is the victim of
this case, namely, Shubham Sinha is also not supporting the fact
that any demand of ransom raised to him while he was in
captivity during the course of kidnapping, rather it was stated by
him that kidnappers were talking about ransom money with
each other. It is submitted that PW -2 Roshan Singh@Vivek,
who is the cousin of victim Shubham Sinha (PW- 5) also failed
to support the factum of demand of ransom money and same is
also about PW-3, namely, Sanjeev Kumar@Raman Srivastava,
who is the uncle of victim Shubham Sinha (PW- 5). It is
submitted that with such evidence in hand it cannot be said that
important ingredients as to established case under Section 364-A
of the I.P.C., i.e., demand "to pay a ransom" was proved.
Learned counsel further submitted that threshold of assault
caused to victim boy (PW-5) is of not such level, which may be
accepted for an offence where minimum punishment is of life
imprisonment and, as such, the prosecution failed to established
its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants/convicts relied upon the
legal report of Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telengana {as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.398 of 2016 dt.16-05-2023
13/40
reported through (2021) 9 SCC 59}.