Summary
Five men were convicted under Section 364A read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life for kidnapping a fourteen-year-old schoolboy in Kurukshetra in 2000, holding him overnight and demanding ransom from his father; the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court set aside the Section 364A conviction and convicted them under Section 363: following Sk. Ahmed, Anil, Vishwanath Gupta and Vikram Singh, the prosecution must prove, beyond kidnapping, a threat of death or hurt or conduct raising a reasonable apprehension of it; the victim's police statement spoke only of a warning not to raise his voice, and his court deposition two years later improved it into a threat to kill with knife and pistol, leaving this ingredient unproved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants were sentenced to seven years.
Issues
- Whether the ingredient of threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or hurt, under Section 364A IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt where the victim's testimony on the threat was a material improvement over his statement to the police.
- Whether the conviction should be modified to one under Section 363 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 364A, Indian Penal Code, 1860The section has three components: kidnapping or abduction or detention; a threat of death or hurt or conduct causing reasonable apprehension of it; and the purpose of compelling payment of ransom or an act; following Sk. Ahmed, the second condition joined by 'and' must be proved in addition to the first, failing which conviction cannot be sustained. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17)
- Sections 361 and 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860Kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship was fully established, so the appellants were convicted of the lesser offence punishable with up to seven years, the Court exercising its power to alter the charge under Section 216 CrPC without prejudice. (¶¶ 11, 12, 18)
Held
- Parliament's graded scheme of kidnapping offences must be carefully interpreted and courts must guard against sentiment in such cases. The victim's statement to the police two days after release recorded only that his captors said they had a revolver and would kill him if he raised his voice, whereas his deposition two years later placed a threat to kill with knife and pistol at the time of abduction, changing the timing, specificity and purpose of the threat; this crucial ingredient was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the courts below did not address the doubt. Malleshi, which concerned to whom the ransom demand is made, does not assist on this ingredient. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; conviction under Section 364A IPC set aside and the appellants convicted under Section 363 IPC with seven years' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000; those who have served more than seven years with remission and paid the fine to be released forthwith if not on bail, others to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder; appeal of the deceased appellant abated.