Supreme Court Reduces Kidnapping for Ransom Conviction to Simple Kidnapping: William Stephen vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 146

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a kidnapping conviction for ransom be reduced to a simple kidnapping if the prosecution fails to prove the ransom demand and threat? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the critical elements required to establish an offense under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the victim child, to determine if the charges of kidnapping for ransom were substantiated. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case revolves around the kidnapping of an eight-year-old child (PW-2) who was a third-standard student. On October 20, 2010, after returning from school and attending tuition classes, the child was allegedly approached by two individuals (the appellants) in a Maruti car. They falsely claimed that his father was going to buy a car from them and persuaded him to get into the vehicle. The prosecution’s case was that the child was then kidnapped. The child’s parents, PW-1 and PW-3, received a call demanding a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs for the child’s release. A complaint was lodged with the police the same night. The police intercepted the car at a toll gate the next day, rescuing the child and arresting the appellants.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this conviction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging their conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 361 of the IPC defines ‘kidnapping from lawful guardianship’ as taking or enticing a minor under sixteen years of age out of the keeping of their lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent. Section 363 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for kidnapping from lawful guardianship, which can extend to seven years of imprisonment. Section 364A of the IPC, which deals with kidnapping for ransom, states:

“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 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.”

The court noted that Section 364A requires either a threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of such harm, in addition to the act of kidnapping or abduction.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that there was no evidence to prove the demand for ransom or any threat to kill or harm the child. They contended that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC.
• They further submitted that the child witness (PW-2) was tutored by his father (PW-1), and therefore, his testimony should not be considered reliable.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that there was a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the parents (PW-1 and PW-3) that the accused might harm or kill their son. They submitted that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 was sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the ingredients of Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically the demand for ransom and the threat to cause death or hurt to the kidnapped child.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Definition of ‘kidnapping from lawful guardianship’.
• Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
• Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Kidnapping for ransom.
• Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admissibility of electronic records.

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to define kidnapping from lawful guardianship and found that the act of kidnapping was established.
• The Court referred to Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to determine the punishment for kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
• The Court analyzed Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of this section, particularly the threat or reasonable apprehension of harm.
• The Court noted that the call records were not admissible as evidence due to the lack of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872*.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence connecting the accused to the ransom demand and threat. The absence of a Section 65B certificate for the call records was critical. The Court also considered that the child’s testimony was reliable regarding the kidnapping itself, but the prosecution did not establish the link between the accused and the ransom demand. The Court emphasized that while the act of kidnapping was proven, the additional elements required to constitute an offense under Section 364A of IPC were not.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the evidence of the parents, along with the fact of the kidnapping, was sufficient to prove a reasonable apprehension of harm, but rejected it. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had to establish a direct connection between the accused and the threat or ransom demand, which was not done in this case. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove all the essential elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC. The court noted:

“…the prosecution is not able to connect the alleged demand and the threat with both the accused. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 364A of IPC were not proved by the prosecution inasmuch as the prosecution failed to lead cogent evidence to establish the second part of Section 364A about the threats given by the accused to cause death or hurt to such person.”

The Court also observed:

“However, in this case, the demand and threat by the accused have not been established by the prosecution.”

The Court further stated:

“Therefore, the only conclusion is that the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 364A of IPC will have to be set aside.”

The Court concluded that while the kidnapping was established, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants made a demand for ransom or threatened to harm the child. The Court found the appellants guilty of the lesser offense of kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC. Since the appellants had already served more than the maximum sentence for this offense, they were ordered to be released.

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must establish all essential ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC to secure a conviction for kidnapping for ransom. This includes proving the act of kidnapping or abduction and the threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of such harm.
• Electronic evidence, such as call records, must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to be admissible in court.
• The testimony of a child witness, if found reliable, can be used to establish the fact of kidnapping, even if the child was tutored by a parent.
• If the prosecution fails to prove the ransom demand or threat, the conviction under Section 364A of the IPC may be reduced to a conviction under Section 363 of the IPC, which is for simple kidnapping.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the State Government must ensure that police officers are given proper training on the procedure to be followed for obtaining a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must establish all the essential ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC to secure a conviction for kidnapping for ransom. This includes proving the act of kidnapping or abduction and the threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of such harm. The Court clarified that the mere act of kidnapping does not automatically lead to a conviction under Section 364A. The prosecution must also prove the demand for ransom and the threat. This case reaffirms the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence and the standard of proof required for criminal convictions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 364A of the IPC and convicting the appellants under Section 363 of the IPC. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 364A, particularly the demand for ransom and threat. The appellants were ordered to be released since they had already served more than the maximum sentence for the offense of kidnapping from lawful guardianship.