Mere Demand For Ransom After Kidnapping Won't Amount To S.364A IPC Offence If There's No Death Threat : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused charged under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code i.e., kidnapping for ransom, after finding that the prosecution failed to establish that there was an instant threat of death to the kidnapped from 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. In a given case, if the threats given to the parents or the close relatives of the kidnapped person by the accused are established, then a case can be made out that there was a reasonable apprehension that the person kidnapped may be put to death or hurt may be caused to him. However, in this case, the demand and threat by the accused have not been established by the prosecution.”, observes the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Two ingredients need to be established by the prosecution to prove the commission of an offence under Section 364A IPC (Kidnapping for Ransom). The first ingredient of Section 364A is that there should be a kidnapping or abduction of any person or a person should be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction. The second ingredient is that if the said act is coupled with a threat to cause death or hurt to such person.The case of the prosecution was that a child (victim) was kidnapped by the appellant-accused, and he asked Rs. 5 Lakhs ransom on a phone call from the parents of the child against their child's release. The prosecution stated that a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the child's parents had been created that the accused, who had kidnapped their son, may put their son to death or cause hurt to him. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 364A IPC have been fulfilled and the accused shall be convicted for the said offence i.e., kidnapping for ransom. After perusing the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, especially the victim child and the parents of the victim, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution was not able to connect the alleged demand of the ransom and the threat to death to convict the accused under S. 364A IPC. “Even taking the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 as correct, all that is proved is that they received a phone call from someone for demanding ransom and the person threatened to kill their son in case ransom is not paid. However, 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 Judgment authored by Oka J. records. The Court noted that the conviction under Section 364A is not made out as the prosecution failed to establish the demand and threat by the accused to the parents or the close relatives of the kidnapped person. “In a given case, if the threats given to the parents or the close relatives of the kidnapped person by the accused are established, then a case can be made out that there was a reasonable apprehension that the person kidnapped may be put to death or hurt may be caused to him. However, in this case, the demand and threat by the accused have not been established by the prosecution.” Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 364A but sustained the conviction for the lesser offence of kidnapping defined by Section 361 of IPC, which is punishable under Section 363 of IPC. “As the appellants are in custody and as they have undergone maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, we direct that they shall be forthwith set at liberty”, the court records.Related report - No Conviction Possible Under S.364A IPC If Prosecution Doesn't Prove Abduction Was Coupled With Ransom Demand & Life Threat : Supreme CourtCase Details: WILLIAM STEPHEN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 607 of 2024Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 168Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Mere Demand For Ransom After Kidnapping Won't Amount To S.364A IPC Offence If There's No Death Threat : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Mere Demand For Ransom After Kidnapping Won't Amount To S.364A IPC Offence If There's No Death Threat : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers