In a recent ruling on January 3, the Supreme Court delved into the intricacies of Section 364A (Kidnapping For Ransom) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, establishing a meticulous criterion for convictions under this section. The court emphasized that beyond establishing the act of abduction, the prosecution must incontrovertibly prove the demand for ransom along with a credible threat to the life of the abducted individual.
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma, in their discerning observations, articulated, “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.”
The context of this ruling unfolded in a criminal appeal where the accused faced charges under Section 364A of the IPC, alongside other provisions. While the court affirmed charges related to attempted murder and robbery, it expressed reservations about the conviction under Section 364A.
The case revolved around a chilling incident where the accused attempted to kill Arjit Sharma, an 18-year-old student. The prosecution detailed that the accused, Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav, abducted Arjit from his guest house, attempted to murder him, looted his belongings, and set him on fire. However, doubts arose regarding the Section 364A conviction.
Examining the evidence, the court underscored the significance of the injured witness, Arjit Sharma, in the criminal trial. The court deemed the testimony of an injured witness as highly valuable unless there were compelling circumstances or evidence from the defense to doubt it.
Delving into Section 364A, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of ransom demand. Despite claims of a ransom call, the court noted a lack of concrete evidence. Consequently, the court converted the findings under Section 364A to Section 364 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder).
In a noteworthy decision, the court set aside the conviction under Section 364A, remarking, “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.”
Before concluding, the court, acknowledging the victim’s severe injuries, directed the State of Chhattisgarh to compensate the victim with Rs.5,00,000/- instead of the initially ordered Rs.1,00,000/-. The ruling in the case titled “NEERAJ SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,” Diary No.- 36298 – 2018, establishes a precedent for a rigorous standard in establishing Section 364A IPC convictions.
