Read Time: 09 minutes

The Supreme Court in a Judgement delivered yesterday held that in order to prove a conviction under Section 364 A (Kidnapping For Ransom), threat to cause death or hurt to the kidnapped is a necessary condition.

The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy while hearing an appeal filed by an Auto Rickshaw driver who was convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court under Section 364 A for kidnapping a School boy and demanding a ransom of Rs 2 Lakhs.

The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove all ingredients for conviction under Section 364A, hence the conviction under Section 364A is not sustainable. He further submitted that there was neither any evidence nor any findings returned by the Courts below that any threat was extended by the accused to cause death or hurt to the victim nor his conduct gave rise to reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. Furthermore, neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court adverted to the above essential conditions for conviction under Section 364A, hence the judgment of the Courts below deserves to be set aside.

After hearing the parties the Court framed the following questions for consideration in the appeal

1. What are the essential ingredients of Section 346A to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution for securing the conviction of an accused under Section 364A IPC?
2. Whether each and every ingredient as mentioned under Section 364A needs to be proved for securing conviction under Section 364A and non-establishment of any of the conditions may vitiate the conviction under Section 364A IPC?
3. Whether the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court recorded any finding that all ingredients of Section 364A were proved by the prosecution?
4. Whether there was any evidence or findings by the Courts below that the accused had threatened to cause death or hurt to the victim or by his conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that victim may be put to death or hurt?

 After noticing the statutory provision of Section 364A and the law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients to convict an accused under Section 364A which are required to be proved by prosecution are as follows:-

1. Kidnapping or abduction of any person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and
2. 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;
3. causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or any Governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.

The Court observed that after establishing first condition, one more condition has to be fulfilled since after first condition, word used is “and”. Thus, in addition to first condition either condition (ii) or (iii) has to be proved, failing which conviction under Section 364A cannot be sustained.

On perusing the order of the Trial Court and the High Court, the bench observed that “Neither there is any such conduct of the accused discussed by the Courts below, which may give a reasonable apprehension that victim may be put to death or hurt nor there is anything in the evidence on the basis of which it can be held that second part of the condition is fulfilled. We, thus, are of the view that evidence on record did not prove fulfillment of the second condition of Section 364A. Second condition is also a condition precedent, which is requisite to be satisfied to attract Section 364A of the IPC.”

The Court however observed that the offence of kidnapping was proved, and the appellant deserves to be convicted under Section 363 of IPC and thus sentenced the appellant with imprisonment of seven years and a fine Rs. 5,000/-.

Case Title: Shaik Ahmed vs State of Telangana   SLP (Crl.) No.308 of 2021)