Summary
The Supreme Court replaced the appellants’ kidnapping-for-ransom convictions with convictions for abduction in order to murder because ransom was not proved. The attempt-to-murder and robbery convictions remained intact. Each appellant received ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the substituted offence, and State-funded victim compensation was increased to Rs.5 lakh.
Issues
- Whether proven abduction and attempted killing also established the ransom-related elements of Section 364A IPC.
- Whether the surviving victim’s supplementary police statement could be treated as a dying declaration.
- What substituted sentence and victim compensation were appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Section 364A, Indian Penal Code, 1860The grave assault and abduction did not dispense with proof of the ransom-related purpose alleged by the prosecution. The unproved telephone demand and a later police account not repeated in trial testimony were insufficient. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Sections 362 and 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860Deceitfully taking the victim away to attempt his murder established abduction in order to murder. The Court substituted Section 364 and imposed ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a Rs.10,000 fine each and three months’ default imprisonment. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18)
- Section 307 read with Section 120B; Section 392 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860The injured victim’s reliable account, supported by medical and other evidence, proved the attempted killing and robbery. Those convictions and sentences were affirmed. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18)
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Because the maker survived, the police statement could not be treated as his dying declaration concerning his death. The High Court erred in using that description for the supplementary police account. (¶ 17)
- Sections 161 and 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The supplementary statement remained a police statement rather than a dying declaration. Its ransom allegation, absent from the victim’s evidence in court, did not establish that element of the offence. (¶¶ 13, 16, 17)
- Sections 357(1) and 357A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court retained the fine to be remitted to the victim and separately enhanced State-funded compensation from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.5 lakh in view of the severe burns and amputation suffered at age eighteen. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Held
- The injured victim’s account of being strangulated, robbed and set on fire was corroborated by his injuries, medical evidence and the evidence of the person who first assisted him. His cross-examination did not undermine the account. Injured-witness evidence carries substantial weight and should not be lightly discarded for minor discrepancies absent compelling contrary reasons. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The prosecution did not prove the alleged ransom demand. The father’s bare account of a call was not adequately established; the victim did not mention ransom in his trial examination-in-chief, though it appeared in a later supplementary police statement. The proved abduction for murder therefore fell under Section 364, not the ransom offence under Section 364A. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The supplementary police statement was not a dying declaration because the victim survived. Treating it as one could not supply the missing proof of ransom. The substituted Section 364 conviction left the independently established attempted-murder, conspiracy and robbery convictions undisturbed. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- A victim is not merely a prosecution witness. The Court retained the additional Rs.50,000 fine against each appellant for remittance to the victim and increased State compensation to Rs.5 lakh, payable within three months, in light of the grievous permanent injuries. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeals partly allowed: Section 364A convictions and life sentences replaced by Section 364 convictions with ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, Rs.10,000 fine each and three months’ default imprisonment. Other convictions and sentences affirmed; retained Rs.50,000 fine each carries one year’s default imprisonment. State compensation increased to Rs.5 lakh within three months. Ashwani’s release is subject to the specified conditions; Neeraj must surrender within two weeks.