Supreme Court Revises Conviction in Abduction and Attempted Murder Case: Neeraj Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 3, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 6
Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Can a conviction under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for kidnapping for ransom be upheld if the demand for ransom is not clearly established? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the abduction and attempted murder of a young student. The court examined the evidence and legal provisions to determine whether the accused were correctly convicted under Section 364A of the IPC. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

The case revolves around the abduction and attempted murder of Arjit Sharma (PW-6), a Class 12th student. On January 2, 2013, Arjit was picked up from his paying guest accommodation by Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav, both known to him. They traveled on a motorcycle to a remote location. In the early hours of January 3, 2013, the two accused attempted to kill Arjit by strangling him with a motorcycle clutch wire. Believing him to be dead, they poured petrol on him and set him on fire. Before setting him on fire, they also robbed him of his mobile phone and ₹5,000. Miraculously, Arjit survived, escaped, and was rescued by strangers. He suffered severe burn injuries, which led to the amputation of his right leg.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav under Sections 307/120B, 364A, and 392/397 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 364A. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld this conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court. Notably, the Supreme Court had issued a limited notice in the case of Neeraj Sharma, specifically questioning the applicability of Section 364A.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Sections 364, 364A, and 362 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 364 of the IPC: This section deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. It states, “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 364A of the IPC: This section addresses kidnapping for ransom. It states, “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.”
• Section 362 of the IPC: This section defines abduction. It states, “Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.”

The Supreme Court also referred to Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of statements made by a person who is dead or cannot be found.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the accused had abducted Arjit Sharma with the intention of murder and also demanded a ransom, thereby fulfilling the criteria for offences under Sections 364A, 307, 392/397 and 120B of the IPC. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim (PW-6), the medical evidence, and the recovery of the victim’s mobile phone from one of the accused. They also presented the testimony of the victim’s father (PW-5) regarding a ransom call.

The defense contended that there was no concrete evidence to prove the demand for ransom, which is a crucial element for conviction under Section 364A of the IPC. They argued that the victim’s statement did not mention a ransom demand, and the only evidence was the father’s testimony, which was not substantiated.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the accused were guilty of an offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for kidnapping for ransom?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Vikram Singh v. Union of India [(2015) 9 SCC 502]* to clarify that Section 364A of the IPC covers both terrorist acts and ransom demands for private monetary gains. However, it emphasized that the demand for ransom must be proven.
• The court referred to Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana [(2021) 9 SCC 59]* to reiterate the three essential conditions for an offense under Section 364A: kidnapping/abduction, threat to cause death/hurt, and demand for ransom.
• The court referred to Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana [(2023) 6 SCC 76]* to reiterate that for Section 364A, the demand of ransom coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there.
• The court referred to Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202]* to reiterate that the demand of ransom must be established before the Court.
• The court applied the principles from Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 355]* regarding the evaluation of evidence from an injured eyewitness.
• The court cited Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of A.P. [(1996) 6 SCC 241]*, Sunil Kumar and Others v. State of M.P. [(1997) 10 SCC 570]*, Shrawan Bhadaji Bhirad and Others v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 10 SCC 565]*, State of U.P. v. Veer Singh and Others [(2004) 10 SCC 117]* and S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 8 SCC 233]* to clarify that a statement given to the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be considered a dying declaration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence to establish the demand for ransom, which is a critical element for a conviction under Section 364A of the IPC. The court emphasized that while the abduction and attempt to murder were clearly established, the prosecution failed to prove the ransom demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the victim’s own statement did not include any mention of a ransom demand, and the father’s testimony was not sufficient to prove this crucial element.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of legal provisions and the application of established legal principles. The factual aspects of the case, such as the abduction and attempt to murder, were considered, but the legal element of a proven ransom demand was the decisive factor.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals. The court set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 364A of the IPC. The court held that while the abduction and attempt to murder were proven, the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of a demand for ransom, which is necessary for a conviction under Section 364A.

The court, however, found the accused guilty of an offense under Section 364 of the IPC, which deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. The court converted the conviction from Section 364A to Section 364, sentencing the accused to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each. The court also upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 392 (robbery) read with Section 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the IPC.

The court emphasized that a statement given to the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be considered a dying declaration. The court also highlighted the importance of the victim as not merely a witness, but someone who has suffered a loss. The court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The court observed, “The statement given by the complainant/victim (PW -6) on 03.01.2013 was firstly to the investigating officer (PW -10). But more importantly it cannot be called “a dying declaration” simply because PW -6 had mercifully survived. This statement cannot be read as a dying declaration because the person making this statement or declaration had ultimately survived.”

The court further stated, “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.”

The court concluded, “We, therefore, partly allow the present appeals to the extent that findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court of conviction under Section 364A of the IPC are hereby set aside. We, however, find that the accused had committed an offence under Section 364 IPC , as the offence of abduction in order to murder the victim i.e., PW -6 stands proved.”

Key Takeaways

• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including the demand for ransom in cases under Section 364A of the IPC.
• Dying Declaration: A statement given to the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be treated as a dying declaration.
• Victim Compensation: Courts have the power to order compensation to victims of crimes, and the State has a responsibility to provide compensation to victims who have suffered significant loss or injury.
• Distinction between Section 364 and 364A: The court has clarified the distinction between the two sections, emphasizing that Section 364A requires proof of both abduction and a demand for ransom.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The conviction under Section 364A of the IPC was set aside and converted to Section 364 of the IPC.
• The accused were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each under Section 364 of the IPC.
• The conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 120B and Section 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC were affirmed.
• The State of Chhattisgarh was directed to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 357A of the CrPC.
• Ashwani Kumar Yadav was to be released subject to the payment of fine/compensation provided he had completed his 10 years of imprisonment and is not required in any other case.
• The bail granted to Neeraj Sharma was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within two weeks to complete his remaining sentence.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the distinction between Section 364 and Section 364A of the IPC. It emphasizes that while abduction with the intent to murder is covered under Section 364, Section 364A requires the additional element of a demand for ransom. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove all the necessary ingredients of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also reiterated that a statement given to the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be considered a dying declaration.

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 364A of the IPC, the prosecution must prove not only the act of kidnapping or abduction but also the demand for ransom. The court held that in the absence of proof of demand for ransom, the conviction under Section 364A cannot be sustained, and the conviction can be converted to Section 364 of the IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Neeraj Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh provides a clear interpretation of Section 364A of the IPC, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to prove the demand for ransom in cases of kidnapping for ransom. The court set aside the conviction under Section 364A, converting it to Section 364, while upholding convictions for other offenses. The judgment also highlights the importance of victim compensation and the limitations of statements given to the police.