Introduction:
In Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 Latest Caselaw 11 SC), the Supreme Court clarified the essential ingredients of the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that although the prosecution had successfully proved abduction and an attempt to murder, it failed to establish an essential requirement of Section 364A proof of a ransom demand. Consequently, the conviction under Section 364A IPC was set aside and converted into a conviction under Section 364 IPC (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder).
Facts of the Case
The victim, an 18-year-old student, was taken on a motorcycle ride by the appellants, who were known to him. During the journey, the accused attempted to
strangulate him using a motorcycle clutch wire. Believing that he had died, they poured petrolon him and set him on fire after robbing him of his mobile phone and cash. Despite suffering severe burn injuries covering nearly half of his body, the
victim managed to escape and was rescued by strangers. He later underwent extensive medical treatment, including the amputation of his right leg. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 307, 120B, 364A, 392
and 397 IPC, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.
Issue Before the Supreme Court The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the
prosecution had proved all the ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 364A IPC for kidnapping for ransom.
Supreme Court's Findings The Court found that the prosecution had convincingly established that: •The victim had been abducted by the accused. •The accused attempted to murder him by strangulation and burning. •The victim's testimony was reliable and fully supported by medical evidence and other witnesses. •The offences of attempt to murder and robbery were proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court held that conviction under Section 364A IPC requires more than proof of kidnapping or abduction. The prosecution must also establish a genuine demand for ransom accompanied by a threat to cause death or hurt. Although the victim's father claimed that he had received a telephone call demanding ₹8 lakh as ransom, the prosecution failed to produce reliable evidence proving the alleged demand. Significantly, the victim himself made no mention of any ransom demand in his statement before the Executive Magistrate or during his testimony before the trial court. The Court also rejected the High Court's reliance on the victim's supplementary police statement recorded nearly two months after the incident. It held that such a statement could not be treated as a dying declaration because the victim had survived the attack and later testified in court. Relying on its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court reiterated that a conviction under Section 364A IPC can only be sustained when the prosecution proves: •Kidnapping or abduction; •A threat of death or hurt, or actual hurt; and •A demand for ransom to compel payment or some other act. Since the prosecution failed to prove the third requirement, the offence under Section 364A IPC was not made out.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and: •Set aside the conviction under Section 364A IPC. •Convicted the appellants under Section 364 IPC for abducting the victim with the intention of murdering him. •Sentenced each appellant to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 IPC. •Upheld the convictions for attempt to murder (Sections 307/120B IPC) and robbery (Sections 392/397 IPC). •Enhanced the victim's compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh, directing the State of Chhattisgarh to pay the amount within three months.
Significance of the Judgment This judgment reinforces that Section 364A IPC is a distinct and aggravated offence that requires strict proof of every statutory ingredient. Mere kidnapping or abduction, even if accompanied by an attempt to murder, is insufficient unless the prosecution proves a genuine demand for ransom. The decision also highlights the high evidentiary value of an injured witness while emphasising that courts cannot presume the existence of a ransom demand without reliable evidence. Further, the judgment underscores the importance of adequate victim compensation in cases involving life-altering injuries.
