No Conviction Possible Under S.364A IPC If Prosecution Doesn't Prove Abduction Was Coupled With Ransom Demand & Life Threat : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (on January 03), in the context of Section 364 A (Kidnapping For Ransom) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, observed that apart from proving the act of abduction, the prosecution must also prove the demand of ransom along with the threat to the life of the abducted person.

“The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there.,” Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma. 

The Top Court made these observations while deciding a criminal appeal in a case where the accused persons, among other provisions, were also convicted under Section 364A of the IPC.

At the outset, the Top Court affirmed the charges of an attempt to murder and robbery. The Court observed that the prosecution has been able to establish these offences beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, the Court expressed its doubts about the conviction under 364- A (Kidnapping For Ransom) of the IPC.

The present case revolves around a horrific incident where an attempt was made by the accused to kill the victim, Arjit Sharma (PW-6). Sharma, an 18-year-old boy, was studying as a Class 12th student at KPS School, Durg. As per the prosecution, the complainant was picked up from his guest house by the two accused, i.e., Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav, and the three took off on their motorcycle to a place called “Doundilohara.” Pertinently, the accused, Neeraj Sharma, and the complainant knew each other.

During the night, when the complainant was trying to ease himself, the two accused attempted to kill him by throttling his neck by the clutch wire of the motorcycle. As a result, the complainant fell on the ground unconscious, and the accused, thinking that the complainant had died, poured petrol on his body and set him on fire. Before setting the victim's body on fire, the accused also looted a certain amount of sum and his phone. However, the complainant managed to escape and was taken to hospital. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons for attempts to murder, robbery, and kidnapping for ransom. The High Court upheld these charges. Against this backdrop, the present appeal was preferred.

Court's Observations

The Court perused the relevant evidence and noted that the most important witness in the present case is the complainant himself. He is also an injured witness., the Court said.

Thus, while underscoring the importance of an injured witness in a criminal trial, the Court marked that evidence by such a witness has to be accepted as an extremely valuable one.

“The importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be over stated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial.”

The Court, while addressing the issue of whether the offence under Section 364 A is made out, noted “Section 364A is an offence where kidnapping or abduction is made and a person is put to death or hurt; or a person is threatened with death or actually murdered, on demand of ransom.”

After perusing the relevant documents, the Court concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the ransom demand. The Court noted that, as per the prosecution, the complainant's father received a phone call from which a demand for ransom was made. The phone call was allegedly traced to one Ravi Kumar Dwivedi, the third accused, later acquitted by the Trial Court. However, the Court observed that no evidence was placed on record to establish the ransom demand. 

“However, in order to come under the ambit of Section 364A, something more than abduction is required, which is demand of ransom. We do not find that there was a demand of ransom as alleged by the prosecution. There is no worthwhile evidence placed by the prosecution in this regard.,” the Court opined.

Against this backdrop, the Court converted the findings under Section 364A to that of Section 364 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder). In this respect, the Court also brought to attention that the complainant made no mention of any demand or ransom in the court as a prosecution witness.

In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court set aside the conviction of accused persons under Section 364A of the IPC and observed:

“In our considered opinion both the Trial Court as well as the High Court were completely misdirected in holding this to be, inter alia, a case under Section 364A of the IPC. There was no worthwhile evidence placed by the prosecution on this aspect.”

Remarkably, before parting, the Court took into consideration that the victim had suffered burn injuries of 45-48% and lost one leg when he was only eighteen years of age. Thus, the Court directed that Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid by the State of Chhattisgarh to the victim instead of Rs.1,00,000/-, directed by the High Court.

Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., Diary No.- 36298 - 2018

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Click here to read the judgment