Issue :-

Mr. J lodged a complaint in the North Bidhannagore Police Station on 04.02.2005 alleging that his sister has been abducted on the very same day at 8:15 am while travelling to college by their car driven by Mr. M by armed goons by taking her in a Maruti van. After the accused received the ransom demanded, they gave her phone back and told her to go back home.  A case was registered and the investigation was carried out. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused. The nine accused were arrested where 2 people out of them were acquitted and the rest were found guilty under Section 120B/364A/342 read with Section 120B I.P.C.

On their conviction under Section 364A read with Section 120B I.P.C., each of the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each with a default cause and under Section 342 read with Section 120B of I.P.C. sentenced to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment.

Solution:-

Mr. G was represented by Kshetry and Associates. They tried to help the appellant by mentioning evidence regarding the ransom that contained a number of notes carrying the respondent’s initials with date. This is contrary to human conduct as any person at such a time would prioritise saving the victim. Therefore, it was concluded that it was planted in the premises. They also tried to prove that since the car had a central locking system, Ms. J, herself unlocked the door and went out with the appellant. Thus, all the allegations framed against the accused were false and unbelievable.

They also mentioned that the appellant made a confession under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reciting that the respondent herself opened the door of her car and went out with him in his van. But then he confessed to his crime since he was told to do so if he wanted his parents to get released. Thus, the confession in itself was a product of blackmail. They helped the appellant get justice that he best deserved.

Directions from the Court

Kshetry and Associates handled this case in the best possible way but as the facts were against him, he was convicted for the offence. The evidence provided by the respondent justified his crime and filled all the loopholes present. The court determined that the conviction order, sentence, and judgement are all well-sustainable and that the appeals are without merit. Hence, the decision, conviction order, and sentence issued by the Learned Court below were upheld, and all appeals were denied.