IPC PROJECT REPORT

BIRBAL CHOUDHARY @MUKHIYEE JI VS STATE OF BIHAR

AIR 2017 SC 4866

SUBMITTED TO : SUBMITTED BY:

DR PUSHPINDER PRANAV PURI

ROLL NO: 214/15,

13728

SEMESTER:6th CLASS:
B.COM LLB(H)
 Acknowledgment

I have made this project with full dedication and zeal. A lot of people helped
me in the completion of this project. I am really thankful to my friends and
peers whose faith in me kept me going. I am also thankful to the authorities
of the library of the department for the access to the invaluable books. Most
of all, I am thankful to my subject teacher, Dr Pushpinder, who has always
been the guiding light and a source of inspiration, for giving me an
opportunity to work on this project.

So, with the concrete efforts and utmost intentions, I hereby present this
project.

-PRANAV PURI

1|Page
 Index

S. NO. Particulars Page no.

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 FACTS OF THE CASE 5

3 CHARGES FRAMED 7

4 ARGUMENTS OF THE 9
PARTIES
5 JUDGEMENTS 14

6 CRITICAL APPRAISAL 18

7 LATEST JUDGEMENT 19

8 CRIME RATE 23
STATISTICS

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 25

2|Page
Introduction

NUMBER NAME USED AS

1) Ajay Shankar Mishra PW-17

2) Manoj singh PW-18
3) Raju Mishra PW-20
4) Informant PW-5
5) Parwez hassan Ansari PW-4
6) Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal PW-3
7) Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal PW-2
8) Sanjay Jaiswal PW-1
9) Prabhavati Devi A-2
10) Lal Manohar Singh A-3
11) Rajbahadur singh or chunnu A-4
singh
12) Krishna singh A-1
13) Jawahar koiry A-5
14) Ramdarash koiry A-15
15) Birbal Choudhary A-13
16) Investing officer PW-19

3|Page
 Introduction of the case

Birbal Choudhary @ Mukhiya Jee vs The State Of Bihar on 6 October,

2017

This case pertains to the abduction of Ajay Shanker Mishra (PW-17),

Manoj Singh (PW-18) and Raju Mishra (PW-20) which the prosecution
claims, was committed for extracting ransom. The written report of Arun
Kumar Mishra (the informant, examined as PW-5 during trial) and
subsequent FIR divulge that the victim PW-17 and the informant (PW-5)
were doing the business together, wherein PW-17 was mainly responsible
for collecting money dues from their business associates. On November 20,
2006, PW-17 along with informant’s cousin PW-20 and the driver PW-18,
left Buxar in a White Maruti Gypsy bearing No. BR 1P 2619, with the
purpose of collecting the dues. Having collected a total of Rs. 4 lakhs from
their business associates i.e. Sanjay Jaiswal (PW-1), Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
(PW-2), Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal (PW-3), Parwez Hassan Ansari (PW-4)
and others, they were proceeding to head back. While they telephonically
informed twice, last being at 4:30 PM, they did not return home and the
next day was spent searching for the missing victims. The records further
disclose that around 6 pm on the next day, the said white Gypsy escorted
by a motorcycle and a silver Bolero was seen going towards Jamauli on the
Rampur Jamauli Canal road. Additionally, it was also recorded that on the
same day i.e November 21, 2006, at around 8:45 pm, the driver PW-18
contacted the informant PW-5 from Sonbarsa informing him that seven
unknown persons had abducted the victims Ajay Shanker Mishra and Raju
Mishra, at gunpoint, the previous evening at around 5 pm by overtaking
the vehicle with two motorcycles and the driver PW-18 was left at Sonbarsa
by the abductors. It was further mentioned in the FIR that the abductors
had committed the said crime for the purpose of extracting ransom.

4|Page
 Facts of Case

This case pertains to the abduction of Ajay Shanker Mishra (PW-17), Manoj

Singh (PW-18) and Raju Mishra (PW-20) which the prosecution claims, was

committed for extracting ransom. The written report of Arun Kumar Mishra (the

informant, examined as PW-5 during trial) and subsequent FIR divulge that the

victim PW-17 and the informant (PW-5) were doing the business together,

wherein PW-17 was mainly responsible for collecting money dues from their

business associates. On November 20, 2006, PW-17 along with informant’s

cousin PW-20 and the driver PW-18, left Buxar in a White Maruti Gypsy

bearing No. BR 1P 2619, with the purpose of collecting the dues. Having

collected a total of Rs. 4 lakhs from their business associates associates i.e.

Sanjay Jaiswal (PW-1), Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal (PW-2), Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal

(PW-3), Parwez Hassan Ansari (PW-4) and others, they were proceeding to

head back. While they telephonically informed twice, last being at 4:30 PM,

they did not return home and the next day was spent searching for the missing

victims. The records further disclose that around 6 pm on the next day, the said

white Gypsy escorted by a motorcycle and a silver Bolero was seen going

towards Jamauli on the Rampur Jamauli Canal road. Additionally, it was also

recorded that on the same day i.e November 21, 2006, at around 8:45 pm, the

driver PW-18 contacted the informant PW-5 from Sonbarsa informing him that

5|Page
seven unknown persons had abducted the victims Ajay Shanker Mishra and

Raju Mishra, at gunpoint, the previous evening at around 5 pm by overtaking

the vehicle with two motorcycles and the driver PW-18 was left at Sonbarsa by

the abductors. It was further mentioned in the FIR that the abductors had

committed the said crime for the purpose of extracting ransom.

As many as 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused

persons, in all, examined 9 witnesses. As per the prosecution story, the victims,

after their kidnapping, were kept in the house of Jawahar Koiry @ Neta Jee (A-

5) at Village Simri and thereafter they were shifted to Village Bhanpur and then

to Ganj Bharsara where they were kept in the house of Birbal Choudhary @

Mukhiya Jee (A-13). From there, they were moved to Village Dilhua, Bhabhni

and Baradih. This movement from village to village where they have kept from

time to time is sought to be established from the mobile versions of accused as

reported by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) that all these villages fell

within the location of one mobile tower identified by Kochas A.

6|Page
 CHARGES FRAMED

Under this case the court laid down various charges and some of the charges
that were mentioned in the charge sheet were dismissed by the court. So in the
case of Birbal Choudhary @mukhiyaa jee vs state of bihar the court laid down
the following charges and that are as follows :

1: Section 364 A of ipc

2: Section 34 of ipc
3: Section 395 of ipc
4: Section 412 of ipc

1) Section 364A

Kidnapping for ransom, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any

person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or
abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by
his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person
may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person
in order to compel the Government or 2[any foreign State or
international inter-governmental organisation or any other person]
to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be
punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine.

2) Section 34

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in
the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

7|Page
 3) Section 395

Punishment for dacoity.—Whoever commits dacoity shall be

punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous impris-
onment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

4) Section 412

Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a

dacoity.—Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen
property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to
have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly
receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to
belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he
knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished
with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

8|Page
 Arguments of the parties

Out of the aforesaid 12 persons whose conviction is maintained by the High

Court, 11 persons have approached this Court. Ramdarash Koiry (A-15) has not

challenged the verdict of the High Court. Particulars of the criminal appeals of

these 11 convicted persons are the following:

As told above there were various criminal appelants made by the convicted

parties.So there arguments are as follows :

: Criminal Appeal No. 701/2012 Birbal Choudhary 2 Criminal Appeal No.

702/2012 Shyam Bihari Paswan 3 Criminal Appeal No. 703-704/2012 Jawahar

Koiry 4 CriminalAppeal No. 705/2012 Ramashraya Koiry 5 Criminal Appeal

No. 706/2012

(1)Rambriksha Koiry

(2) Hirdayanand Koiry

(3) Mangala Singh

(4) Saroj Singh 6 Criminal Appeal No. 707/2012 Krishna Bihari Singh 7

Criminal Appeal No. 708/2012 Angad Koiry 8 and

(5)Criminal Appeal No. 1858/2013 Harbanse Ram

9|Page
So the arguments are as follows:

Mr. Basant arguing for the appellant Birbal Choudhary (A-13) made his

submission on three fronts, namely:

(i) There is no legal evidence to implicate A-13.

(ii) Allegations and charge under Section 364A of IPC was utterly baseless.

(iii) Enhancement of sentence to 20 years RI was legally impermissible.

On the first aspect, Mr. Basant submitted that the allegations pertained to

abduction of three persons who had deposed in the Court as PWs-17, 18 and 20

but none of them had identified A-13 in the Court. Not only this, PW-17 and

PW-20 did not identify him even earlier and did not participate in the TIP. As

far as PW-18 is concerned, though he was taken to TIP on December 11, 2006,

he identified some other person as ‘Mukhiya Jee’. His submission was that

Birbal Choudhary was implicated only on the basis of statement of these

kidnapped persons that when they were detained in captivity, after kidnapping,

one person was addressed as ‘Mukhiya’ and A-13 is known as ‘Mukhiya’.

Apart from that, there was not even iota of evidence against his client and even

PW-18 identified somebody else as ‘Mukhiya’ in TIP held on December 11,

2006 and this piece of evidence could not be used against Birbal Choudhary.

Referring to another TIP which was conducted on December 14, 2006, Mr.

Basant submitted that though in the said TIP, he identified Birbal Choudhary,
10 | P a g e
but in the Court he did not identify him. Further, no recoveries were made from

A-13. On the aforesaid basis, his submission was that there was no legal

evidence to implicate this appellant.

Another submission of Mr. Basant in this context was that before the two

chargesheets were consolidated, in the first chargesheet, 13 persons were

committed to trial on April 16, 2007 and other two persons from the second

chargesheet were committed to trial on September 15, 2007. However, before

September 15, 2007, six witnesses, namely, PW-1 to PW-6 had already been

examined in the trial pertaining to first chargesheet. After the two chargesheets

were consolidated, PW-1 to PW-6 were examined again. However, deposition

of these witnesses when examined again was used against the appellant Birbal

Choudhary as well by the trial court in its judgment which has prejudiced the

case of Birbal Choudhary.

Mr. Basant also found fault with the reasoning of the High Court wherein A-13

is covered by the TIP, by inference.

Adverting to the argument predicated on Section 364A IPC, submission of Mr.

Basant was that ingredients of this Section could not be established during the

trial in as much as there was no demand for ransom as neither PW-5 nor PW-17

deposed to this effect. For this purpose, he read out the accusations made in the

11 | P a g e
FIR which, according to him, did not contain any reference to either ‘Mukhiya

Jee’ or ‘ransom’.He said there was only a belief.

He further submitted that though it is alleged by the prosecution that the

kidnapped persons were kept in the house of A-13, there was no reliable

evidence to this effect inasmuch as no Mahazir of the house was prepared and

no evidence was led to the effect that where the kidnapped persons were kept,

that house belongs to A-13. In this behalf, he also laboured to submit that the

witnesses, particularly, PW-8, PW-18 and PW-19 had given varying versions.

He, thus, argued that no demand for ransom was proved.

23

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2012

52) This appeal is filed by Angad Koiry (A-9). Allegation against him is that he

was part of the team which had kidnapped the victims. He was identified in TIP

as well as in Court. These aspects were fairly admitted by the learned counsel.

However, his only contention was that there was no reason to convict him

under Section 364A IPC and his conviction should have been under Section

364 IPC. In this behalf, submission was that after kidnapping, no role is

assigned to him and, therefore, the allegations of ransom cannot be attributed to

A-9.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 707 OF 2012

12 | P a g e
 This appeal is filed by A-1 Krishna Bihari Singh @ Krishna Singh.

As far as A-1 is concerned, he is also one of those who was a part of team

which abducted PWs-17, 18 and 20. Our purpose would be served by

reproducing the discussion qua him in the impugned judgment of the High

Court, as during arguments, learned counsel appearing for this appellant could

not make any single argument worthy of any consideration:

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1858 OF 2013

56) Harbanse Ram (A-8) is the appellant in this appeal. He is convicted

under Section 364A/34 IPC and was acquitted of the charge under Section

412 IPC. His lawyer argued that his name was not mentioned in the first

chargesheet. Further, as far as A-8 is concerned, charges were framed only

under Section 368 and 412 IPC and, therefore, his conviction under Section

364A/34 was legally not tenable.

These were the arguments passed by the appellant

13 | P a g e
 Judgement

Section 364A reads as under:

"Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after

such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such

person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such

person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in

order to compel the Government or (any foreign State or international inter-

governmental organization or any other person) to do or abstain from doing any

act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life,

and shall also be liable to fine."

To attract the provisions of Section 364-A what is required to be proved is:

(1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; (2) kept him under

detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the

kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.”

(2) the Court provided the following guidelines:“Ultimately the question to

be decided is "what was the intention? Was it demand of ransom?" There

can be no definite manner in which demand is to be made. Who pays the

ransom is not the determinative fact.”

14 | P a g e
 Insofar as kidnapping is concerned, there is no serious dispute about the

same. We find that the demand for ransom has been duly proved by the

prosecution.

Even the last argument of Mr. Basant lacks merit. It is to be kept in mind

that the Sessions Court had sentenced the appellant for life for conviction

under Sections 364A/34 IPC. High 3 (2008) 13 SCC 767 Court felt it

appropriate to award the punishment of imprisonment for 20 years. It was

done not only in the case of the appellant or others who were awarded life

imprisonment by the trial court but even two other convicts who were

given death sentence, their sentence is also reduced to 20 years RI. It is,

therefore, clear that the High Court while modifying the sentence qua the

appellant Birbal, in fact, reduced the same from life imprisonment to 20

years RI.

: Insofar as the argument of Mr. Bansal, learned senior counsel for the

appellant predicated on re-examination of PW-1 to PW-6 after

consolidation of chargesheet is concerned, we find that this step was

rather taken in the interest of the appellant. Appellant was not named in

the first chargesheet and at the time when PW-1 to PW-6 were examined

in the first chargesheet, obviously, the appellant was not present.The

court did not find any different result so the court dismissed Criminal

Appeal No. 701 of 2012.

So the next judgement of a 9 are as follows

15 | P a g e
 :2 Once we find that role of A-9 in kidnapping the three persons stands

established beyond any doubt and it also stands established that

kidnapping was for the ransom which was actually demanded and there

was a common intention behind the aforesaid acts, A-9 is rightly

convicted under Section 364AIPC.

Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2012 is dismissed as well

So the rest of the arguments that were made by the advocates of the

appealnt were all dismissed by the apex court.

So the court followed the same judgement that was given by the high

court and the judgement are as follows

16 | P a g e
 APEX Court

Accused name Section Punishment

1)Krishna Bihari 364A/34, Death 10

Krishna Singh 395, 412/34 20 YEARS RI

2)Prabhawati 412/34 Acquitted

3)Lal Mohar 412/34 Acquitted

4)Jawahar 120B, 95, 412 20 years ri

5)Shyam Bihari 364A/34, 10YEARS
6)Rambriksha 364A/34, 20 years
7)Harbanse 368, 412 20 YEARS
8)Angad Koiry 364A/34, 20 YEARS
9)Hirdayanand 364A/34, 20 YEARS
10)Mangala 364A/34, 20 YEARS
11)Saroj Singh 364A/34, 20 YEARS
12)Birbal 364A/34,395 20 YEARS
13)Ramashraya 364A/34, 20 YEARS
14)Ramdarash 364A/34, 20 YEARS

17 | P a g e
 Critical appraisal

After going through to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the present case it can be found out that Hon’ble High Court was totally right in
there judgement.It can be further noticed that supreme court of india took each
and every appeal of the prosecution and worked on it thoroughly.They even
recounducted the procedure in order to check the work done by the trial and the
high court.All the evidences that the prosecution put were taken into the
consideration and the proper judgement was taken place. The supreme court
read the judgement of the high court and agreed on each punishment and the
same judgement was pursued by the supreme court.
All the charges that were framed were accurate and the proper judgement took
place.The only place that the high court should have done was to follow the
procedure during investigation.so according to me this was the fair judgement
given by the supreme court of india.

18 | P a g e
 Latest judgement

1)DANA YADAV ALIAS DAHU AND OTHER VS STATE OF BIHAR

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Shambhu Prasad Komal
(PW 14), who was a worker of Revolutionary Group of Forward Bloc, along
with his companions was undertaking a padyatra from 22-4-1983 to 27-4-1983
which was led by their leader Balmukund Rahi. In the evening of 25-4-1983
they held a meeting at Guraru and after the same was over PW 14 along with
150 workers went to Village Karma for night halt where they stayed in the
house of one Ramratan Yadav (PW 12) and after taking dinner when some of
them were sitting inside the baithaka and others outside, at about 9-9.15 p.m,
they heard slogans coming from towards south of the village. In the meantime,
nearly 150-200 members of Naxalite group came, surrounded the house of PW
12, amongst whom accused Dara Singh @ Kamdeo Yadav and appellant
Bindeshwar Yadav were carrying guns and pointing towards the prosecution
party saying “be careful and raise your hands” whereupon out of fear some of
the members of the prosecution party went inside the house and closed the door
from within. Thereafter, they heard sounds of bullet-firing and bomb explosion
and the house in which they were hiding themselves was set on fire. When the
members of the prosecution party found that they were exposed to the risk of
being roasted alive as a result of fire, they came out of the house and at that
point of time the accused persons surrounded them and took them to the south-
eastern direction where they were forced to sit. Out of the members of the
prosecution party, Balmukund Rahi, Chandradeo Yadav and Ganesh Yadav
(PW 1) were taken to eastern direction by the appellants Bindeshwar Yadav and
Bhuvneshwar Bind besides accused Dara Singh, Madan Dusadh, Dhudheshwar
Dusadh and Gupta Yadav. Out of them appellants Bindeshwar Yadav and
Bhuvneshwar Bind apart from accused Dara Singh and Dhudheshwar Dusadh
were said to have cut throats of Balmukund Rahi and Chandradeo Yadav with
pasuli whereas PW 1 was inflicted injuries on the head by pharsa but he
managed to escape. Appellants Dana, Rambilas, Doman and Ramchandra along
with eight other named accused persons and several other unknown were
alleged to have surrounded other members of the prosecution party and
assaulted Bal Govind (PW 8), Chandrika (PW 4) and Ramratan Yadav (PW 12)
19 | P a g e
who received injuries. Thereafter the accused persons took to their heels.
Motive for the occurrence disclosed was that members of the prosecution party
had undertaken padyatra against terror spread by the Naxalites. Stating the
aforesaid facts, fardbeyan of the informant (PW 14) was recorded by the Sub-
Inspector of Police on the same day at 11 p.m in the village on the basis of
which formal first information report was drawn up against 14 named accused
persons, including the appellants, excepting Deo Nandan, and the police, after
registering the case, took up investigation, during the course of which appellant
Deo Nandan was also made accused in the case and on completion thereof,
submitted charge-sheet, on receipt whereof the learned Magistrate took
cognizance and committed 14 accused persons, including the appellants, to the
Court of Session to face trial
JUDGEMENT
B.N Agrawal, J.— The appellants along with accused Rajendra Yadav and
Madan Dusadh were convicted by the trial court under sections 302/149 of the
penal code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further
convicted under sections 307/149 and 436 of the penal code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and seven years
respectively. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. The
other five accused were acquitted by the trial court. On appeals being preferred,
convictions and sentences of the appellants have been upheld by the High Court
whereas accused Rajendra Yadav and Madan Dusadh have been acquitted.
2)
MANIK BIND@MANIK SON OF LATE DWARKA BIND VS STATE OF
BIHAR
The brief facts which emerged out of the records of the trial court are that in the
night of 27 April, 1984 at about 2.00 P.M while the informant Etwari Yadav
(P.W.5) was sleeping on the roof of his house in village Shivnandanpur Musahari
under P.S - Sultanganj in the District of Bhagalpur, all of a sudden two miscreants
came there and placed their gun on the chest of the informant. The informant
allegedly identified one Tanki Bind, son of Chhabbu Bind and other one being
Chhotan Bind, son of not known, resident of Belwatandi. The informant alleged
that he could identify them in the light of the torch, the accused asked him not to
raise Hulla but when they went towards the courtyard (Angan) of the house the
informant jumped upon the chappar of his uncle Gholti Yadav. The informant
alleged that from the chappar of Gholti Yadav he could see that in the backside
of his house also five miscreants/criminals were standing. He explained that they
were lashed with lathi, revolver and bhala. He described them saying that they

20 | P a g e
were sanwala and youths who were wearing lungi and ganji and were speaking
in Beldari language. The informant claimed that he could identify them in the
light of their torch. He further claimed that he can identify them on seeing. It is
further case of the informant in his fard-e-beyan that he ran towards southern side
of the house and moved from south to east. According to him in the southern as
well as northern side of the house two criminals/miscreants were present who
were identified as Biswanath Bind son of Mannu Bind, Bliash Mandal, son of
Bhuneshwar Mandal, Manki Bind, son of Bhutku @ Dwarika Bind and Mahavir
Bind of village Belwatandi. The informant alleged that the criminals fired a
number of shots, therefore, being afraid of them nobody came from his village
despite the Hulla raised by the informant.
5. It is alleged that in the said firing, one Bechan Yadav who is brother-in-law of
Sumit Yadav got injured. According to the informant the criminals committed
lootpaat in his house for 20 minutes, and therefore they entered in the house of
Janak Yadav and Chhoti Yadav where they committed lootpaat and then fled
towards the western side. It is alleged that while fleeing away the criminals
exploded bombs. He further disclosed that apart from him his mother, father and
other persons have identified the criminals such as Umesh Bind son of
Ramswarup Bind, Basuki Bind brother-in-law of Bhuchunglal Bind, Saudagar
Bind, son of Bhothari Bind of village Shivnandanpur, Vijay Bind son of Jagdish
Bind of Belwatandi was allegedly identified as he was committing the lootpaat
inside the house. According to the informant, there were altogether 15-20
criminals who were speaking Beldari language. The informant also gave detail of
the ornaments and some articles which were looted from his house.

JUDGEMENT
THE judgment dated 9th December, 2003 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 427/1986
(State through Etwari Yadav, Informant v. Manik Bind @ Maniki Bind)
whereunder the learned trial court had recorded a finding of guilt against the
accused-appellants under section 395 of the indian penal code and imposed a
sentence of 7 years against these appellants.

Upon consideration of the totality of the facts emerging out from the evidences
brought on the record in course of the trial as also upon considering the effect of
non examination of the Investigating Officer in this case and the fact that no effort
was taken by the prosecution to mark the case diary exhibited and then the
mandatory provision of section 313 cr.p.c has not been followed, I would come

21 | P a g e
to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the
appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellants-accused are entitled to
get the benefit of doubt, and therefore, an acquittal in this case.

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the judgment under appeal is set
aside. The appellants are discharged from their liabilities of their respective bail
bonds.

22 | P a g e
 CRIME RATE STATISTICS

Comparison of data of cases of kidnapping and dacoit (Section 364A AND 395)
of 5 states for 5 years.

State 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

HARYANA 991 982 1106 1002 1057

UTTAR 4966 5047 5150 4732 4889

PRADESH
HIMACHAL 113 104 130 106 101
PRADESH
BIHAR 3566 3441 3403 3178 2581

RAJASTHAN 1461 1573 1637 1569 1551

6000

5000

4000 2012
2013
3000
2014
2000
2015
1000 2016

0
HARYANA UTTAR PRADESH HIMACHAL BIHAR RAJASTHAN
PRADESH

23 | P a g e
Comparison of data of cases of kidnapping and dacoity, (Section 364a and
395) of 3 states for 3 years.

State 2014 2015 2016

HARYANA 1106 1002 1057

PUNJAB 767 701 771

CHANDIGARH 24 20 14

1200

1000

800

2014
600
2015
2016
400

200

0
HARYANA PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

24 | P a g e
 Bibliography

 https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=302%20ipc+doctype
s:judgments

 http://www.livelaw.in/sc-acquits-five-accused-27-yr-old-murder-
case/

 https://www.google.co.in/search?q=latest+judgement+on+302+ipc
&oq=latest+judgement+on&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j35i39j0l4.8837j0j
4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/in
dex.php?Title=Indian%20Penal%20Code,%201860

25 | P a g e