HC upholds lifeterm for 5 in minor’s kidnapping case

The Chhattisgarh high court has dismissed five criminal appeals and upheld the life imprisonment awarded to five individuals, including a woman, for kidnapping a minor child for ransom in Bilaspur. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on May 15 observed that the prosecution successfully established that the accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, kidnapped the minor child for ransom.

The court noted that the offence stood proved through cogent and reliable oral evidence, identification memos, and extensive electronic evidence including call detail records (CDR) and cyber analysis reports.

Chhattisgarh HC passed the order while hearing the appeals filed by Nita Saraf, Rajkishore, Anil Singh, Satish Sharma, and Harekrishna Kumar against their conviction by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on September 23, 2022.

According to the prosecution, the prime accused, Nita Saraf, is the aunt of the minor victim, Virat Saraf. Saraf had outstanding financial dues and conspired with Anil Singh to kidnap a relative’s child for ransom to settle the liabilities.

They hired Rajkishore, Harekrishna Kumar, and Satish Sharma to execute the plan. On April 20, 2019, the accused gagged and kidnapped Virat Saraf in a car from near his house. They confined him to a room at Rajkishore’s residence in Panna Nagar, Jarhabhata. The kidnappers subsequently made multiple telephone calls to the child’s father, Vivek Saraf, from numbers obtained using fraudulently acquired SIM cards, demanding a ransom of Rs 6 crore.

Following a police complaint, a raid was conducted on 26 April 2019, leading to the safe rescue of the child from the house and the arrest of the accused persons. The trial court had sentenced the five accused under Sections 120-B, 363, 364-A, 365, and 368 of the Indian Penal Code.

The highest punishment awarded was life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 25,000 under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B. All sentences are to run concurrently. The high court rejected the defense arguments pointing to minor lapses in the police probe, stating that criminal justice cannot be discarded due to minor defects in investigation when the chain of electronic and material evidence is complete. The bench directed that the judgment be served on the appellants in jail.