Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 3, 2024 converted conviction of two men from the offence of kidnapping for ransom to abduction for murder, finding no substantial evidence with regard to demand of money.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma reduced sentence of life term awarded to convicts Neeraj Sharma and Ashwini Kumar Yadav to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for abduction of 18-year-old Arijit Sharma in January, 2013 in Durg, Chhattisgarh.

"The prosecution story as far as abduction and attempt to murder is concerned can hardly be in doubt. The prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The most important witness here is the complainant himself, who is an 18-year-old boy, studying at the relevant time in a college near Bhilai, who trusted his friends, not aware that he is being taken by deceit by his friends who had planned his murder," the bench said.

Highlighting the importance of injured witness in a criminal trial, the bench said that it could not be over stated as unless there were compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this had to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence.

With regard to Section 364A, the court pointed out that it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by an Act of Parliament with effect from May 22, 1993. That was a period when kidnapping and abduction for the purposes of ransom were on the rise and therefore, the Law Commission of India in its 42nd Report in 1971 had recommended insertion of Section 364A in IPC, though it was ultimately incorporated in the year 1993, the bench noted.

The bench pointed out that in case of 'Vikram Singh Vs Union of India' (2015), it was stated that Section 364A IPC did not merely cover acts of terrorism against the Government or Foreign State but it also covered cases where the demand of ransom is made not as a part of a terrorist act but for monetary gains for a private individual. 

"In the present case, the evidence placed by the prosecution to establish a case under Section 364-A is in the form of a phone call to the father of the victim at 12 noon by Ravi Kumar Dwivedi (the third accused who was acquitted by the Trial Court). Although, according to the prosecution the number has been traced to Ashwani Kumar Yadav, one of the two accused here, but no evidence to this effect, as required under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, has been placed before the Court," the bench said.

Citing the Supreme Court judgement in case of 'Shaik Ahmed Vs State of Telangana' (2021), the bench said that not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there. This was reiterated in the case of 'Ravi Dhingra Vs State of Haryana' (2023), the bench noted.

"In the present case, what the prosecution has miserably failed to establish is the demand of ransom," the bench said, emphasising that it was absolutely necessary as laid down in case of 'Rajesh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh' (2023).

"We do not find that there was a demand of ransom as alleged by the prosecution. There is no worthwhile evidence placed by the prosecution in this regard," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that the injured witness also made no mention of any demand or ransom in the court as a prosecution witness. In his first statement given to the Executive Magistrate, he again made no mention of any ransom. He only mentioned about ransom in his supplementary statement recorded by the Police after two months. 

The high court believed it and called it a “dying declaration”, which cannot be called so simply because PW-6 (injured witness) had mercifully survived. This statement cannot be read as a dying declaration because the person making this statement or declaration had ultimately survived. This supplementary statement given to the investigating officer is nothing more than a statement under Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code, the bench said.

The court, therefore, partly allowed the appeal moved by the convicts, saying 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.

The bench directed Chhattisgarh government to pay compensation of Rs five lakh, instead of one lakh decided by the high court under Section 357A of the CrPC, to the victim whose left leg below the knee was to be amputated due to injuries as the accused tried to strangulate him and poured petrol on his body to burn him believing him to be dead.

It also ordered that a sum of Rs 50,000 fine imposed on each of the two convicts should also be remitted to the victim.

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh