Citation : 2018 Local Law (CG) 865
The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed the conviction of two men for abducting a student, attempting to kill him, and robbing him, while also directing compensation for the survivor who later lost his right leg below the knee.
Justice Pritinker Diwaker dismissed the appeal against a judgment dated 3 January 2015 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, in Sessions Case No. 02/2013. The trial court had convicted Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav under Sections 307/120B, 364A, and 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹100 for the conspiracy and attempt to murder charge, life imprisonment with a fine of ₹200 for kidnapping for ransom, and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for robbery with a deadly weapon, with default stipulations.
According to the prosecution, on the evening of 2 January 2013, the accused lured complainant Arjit Sharma to accompany them on a motorcycle. Near Doundilohara around 1 a.m., they allegedly looped a clutch wire around his neck to strangle him, then poured petrol and set him on fire after taking his phone and ₹5,000 in cash. Believing he had died, they fled. The victim managed to reach a nearby plant, where guards called an ambulance. He was treated at Doundilohara, then referred to Rajnandgaon and Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai. Doctors recorded 40–48 percent burns and a ligature mark on his neck. Complications led to amputation of his right leg below the knee.
The victim’s statement, recorded as a dying declaration by an Executive Magistrate on 3 January 2013 after medical certification of fitness, detailed the abduction, assault, and burning. His father also received a call demanding ₹8 lakh for the victim’s release the next day, a fact the court found consistent with the declaration and other evidence.
The defense argued that there was no test identification parade for Ashwani Kumar Yadav, that the complainant had been drinking, that the clutch wire was not seized, and that Section 364A was not made out because a co-accused allegedly linked to the ransom call, Ravi Kumar Dwivedi, had been acquitted. The High Court rejected these submissions. It held that in-court identification is substantive evidence, especially where the accused and victim spent considerable time together and there was no claim of poor visibility or a covered face. On Section 364A, the court found the ransom demand proved through the father’s testimony and its reflection in the dying declaration, noting that the acquittal of one co-accused did not negate the demand or the appellants’ role.
Finding the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court upheld the convictions and sentences. It also invoked Section 357 CrPC to award compensation, directing each appellant to pay ₹50,000 to the victim, and the State to pay an additional ₹1,00,000. The court emphasized that compensation is an essential part of victim rehabilitation and can be granted by trial, appellate, or revisional courts. The appeal was dismissed, and copies of the order were directed to be sent to the State Legal Services Authority and relevant departments for compliance.
Case Details : CRA No. 200 of 2015, Neeraj Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (26.06.2018)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Achyut Tiwari and D.N. Prajapati, Advocates. For Respondents/Defendant: Ravindra Agrawal, G.A.
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
Pritinker Diwaker and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ.
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL MATTERS IN WHICH SENTENCE AWARDED IS MORE THAN FIVE YEARS
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 162; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 307; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 313; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 357; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 357-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 357-A(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 394; Constitution Of India – Article 38, Constitution Of India – Article 41; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 120B; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 307; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 364; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 364A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 392; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 394; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 397
Supreme Court Case Details : Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5676 of 2021) Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (03.01.2024) : 2024 Local Law (SC) 6
======
छत्तीसगढ़ हाई कोर्ट ने दो आरोपियों की सज़ा बरकरार रखी, जिन्हें एक छात्र का अपहरण करने, उसे जलाकर मारने की कोशिश करने और लूटने के लिए दोषी ठहराया गया था। पीड़ित अर्जित शर्मा 40–48% जल गया था और बाद में उसका पैर काटना पड़ा। उसका बयान, मेडिकल सबूत और उसके पिता को मिला फिरौती कॉल अदालत ने विश्वसनीय माना। कोर्ट ने कहा कि धारा 364A (फिरौती) साबित होती है। दोनों की सज़ा यथावत रखी गई और पीड़ित को कुल 2 लाख रुपये मुआवज़ा देने के निर्देश दिए गए।