[Kidnapping] No Conviction Possible U/S 364A IPC Sans Evidence Suggesting Application Of Force Or Adoption Of Deceitful Means By Accused: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has overturned the conviction of an accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any deceitful means or inducement by the accused that compelled the deceased to relocate.

The Court emphasized that in the absence of foundational elements, an accused cannot be found guilty under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Subhash Chand underscored, “From the definition of the word “abduction” in Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code it is clear that there has to be an element of force, compulsion or deceitful means or any inducement, which would directly or indirectly force a person to go with the abductors. Thus, if any force is applied upon a person or a deceitful mean is resorted to, which compels a person to go from any place to another, it will be termed as “abduction”.”

The Court held, “Considering what has been discussed above, we find that basic ingredients of “kidnapping” and “abduction” are missing in this case. When the basic ingredients and components are missing, there cannot be conviction under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, thus, has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code in absence of the basic ingredients. Thus, we have no other option than to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the appellant from the charges.”

The appellant contested their conviction under Section 364 of the IPC, asserting the absence of key elements constituting 'kidnapping' or 'abduction' in the case. Additionally, he was concurrently facing trial for a murder case in West Bengal.

The State presented evidence from two witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant with the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased's body was discovered in West Bengal, leading to charges under Section 302 of the IPC, the APP appearing for the State, submitted.

While expounding on Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court stated, “From the aforesaid Section, it is quite clear that there has to be an element of kidnapping or abduction of any person to attract Section 364 Indian Penal Code.”

The Court further expounded that to establish abduction, the prosecution must demonstrate the use of force or deceitful inducement, compelling the victim to relocate from one location to another.

The court, upon careful examination of the evidence presented, notably highlighted that no witnesses testified to the application of force by the appellant, compelling the deceased to move against their will. It emphasized that witnesses consistently reported the deceased as driving the tempo with the appellant and another individual as passengers.

The court noted, “Further, there is no evidence, which would suggest that by any deceitful means the deceased was forced to move from one place to another. In absence of any evidence, which could suggest that force was applied or any deceitful means was adopted, basic ingredients of the definition of “abduction” as envisaged in Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. When the basic ingredients are not attracted, an accused cannot be convicted of offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code,” the Court added.

Additionally, the court underscored a significant revelation during the cross-examination of the investigating officer.

“This statement is thus, fatal for the prosecution. This statement clearly suggests that for the first time before the Court, these witnesses have stated that they had seen the deceased driving the tempo in which this appellant and another were sitting. This is a major development in the prosecution case, which has been done for the first time while deposing in Court. Thus, this statement is not believable.,” the Court noted.

Consequently, based on the inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: Bapi Namta @ Baapi Namta v. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

Click Here to Read / Download the Judgment