Pranav B Prem

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless the prosecution establishes a direct threat of death or harm. The Court partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, modifying his conviction from Section 364A IPC (Kidnapping for Ransom) to Section 363 IPC (Kidnapping) and Section 365 IPC (Kidnapping with Intent to Confine). The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the prosecution failed to establish all three essential ingredients required for conviction under Section 364A IPC, particularly the element of threat to cause death or harm.

Court’s Observations

The High Court emphasized that all three ingredients must be satisfied for conviction under Section 364A IPC. The Bench observed: “Three ingredients are required for the offence of Section 364-A I.P.C., one is kidnapping or abduction, second is threat of death coupled with the demand of money and thirdly when the demand is not made, then causing death or hurt and if all these three ingredients are available that will constitute the offence under Section 364-A of I.P.C. and in absence of any one of the mandatory conditions the accused cannot be convicted.”

Case Background

The case arose from the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court under Sections 363 and 364A IPC for allegedly kidnapping a six-year-old child and demanding a ransom of Rs. 3 lakh from the child’s father. The prosecution claimed that the appellant made a ransom call and issued threats to the victim’s father. Advocate Savita Tiwari represented the appellant, while Advocate SS Ubeja appeared for the State.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that while the prosecution was able to prove kidnapping under Sections 363 and 365 IPC, it failed to establish the necessary ingredients of Section 364A IPC. The Bench noted: “Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of any clinching evidence with respect to the demand of ransom and ransom call allegedly made to the father of the victim, the appellant cannot be convicted for kidnapping for ransom rather he can be convicted for kidnapping with intent to wrongfully confine the person which comes under the offence of Section 365 of I.P.C.” The Court pointed out that although there were allegations of kidnapping and ransom demand, the prosecution failed to prove the second condition—that the appellant had threatened to cause death or injury to the victim. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2021), which held that all three ingredients of Section 364A IPC must be satisfied for a conviction.

In the present case, the prosecution presented call detail records but failed to establish the content of the ransom call. Additionally, the Court noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a pre-existing property dispute between the appellant and the victim’s family, which cast doubt on the prosecution’s claims.

Key Findings of the Court

1. The Court observed that there was no credible evidence to show that the appellant directly threatened the victim or his family with death or injury.

2. The prosecution did not provide conclusive evidence linking the appellant to the alleged ransom demand.

3. The Court noted that the accused and the complainant were relatives and had an ongoing property dispute, raising the possibility of false implications.

4. Although a ransom letter was allegedly recovered, the prosecution did not conduct a handwriting analysis to link it to the appellant.

Modified Sentence

Considering these factors, the Court modified the appellant’s conviction. Instead of life imprisonment under Section 364A IPC, the appellant was convicted under:

• Section 363 IPC: One year of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 500, with an additional one month of RI in case of default.

• Section 365 IPC: Five years of RI and a fine of Rs. 1000, with an additional two months of RI in case of default.

The Court also ordered that the appellant be given set-off for the period already spent in custody.

Cause Title: Ishwar Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No: CRA No. 828 of 2021

Date: January-20-2025

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

[Read/Downlod order]