12. We note that Section 363 of the IPC punishes the act of kidnapping and Section 364 thereof punishes the offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person in order to murder him. Section 364 A further adds to the gravity of the offence by involving an instance of coercive violence or substantial threat thereof, to make a demand for ransom. Accordingly, the maximum punishment for the three crimes is seven years imprisonment; ten years’ imprisonment and imprisonment for life or death, respectively. The nuanced, graded approach of the Parliament while criminalising the condemnable act of kidnapping must be carefully interpreted. Before interpreting the varying ingredients of crime and rigours of punishment, and appraising the judgments impugned, we deem it appropriate to reiterate the observations of this Court in Lohit Kaushal vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 17 SCC 106, wherein this Court observed as under:
“15. … It is true that kidnapping as understood under Section 364-A IPC is a truly reprehensible crime and when a helpless child is kidnapped for ransom and that too by close relatives, the incident becomes all the more unacceptable. The very gravity of the crime and the abhorrence which it creates in the mind of the court are, however, factors which also tend to militate against the fair trial of an accused in such cases. A court must, therefore, guard against the possibility of being influenced in its judgments by sentiment rather than by objectivity and judicial considerations while evaluating the evidence.”
13. This Court, notably in Anil vs. Administration of Daman & Diu, (2006) 13 SCC 36 (“Anil”), Vishwanath Gupta vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 11 SCC 633 (“Vishwanath Gupta”) and Vikram Singh vs. Union of India, (2015) 9 SCC 502 (“Vikram Singh”) has clarified the essential ingredients to order a conviction for the commission of an offence under Section 364 A of the IPC.
It is necessary to prove not only that such kidnapping or abetment has taken place but that thereafter, the accused threatened to cause death or hurt to such person or by his conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or cause hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international, inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.
14. Most recently, this Court in SK Ahmed has emphasised that Section 364 A of the IPC has three stages or components, namely,
i. Kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention;
ii. Threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and
iii. When the demand is not met, then causing death.
18. This Court has wide power to alter the charge under Section 216 of the Cr.PC whilst not causing prejudice to the accused, as reiterated in Jasvinder Saini vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256, para 11; Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Karimullah Osan Khan (2014) 11 SCC 538, paragraph Nos. 17 and 18. The following observations of this Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 12 SCC 467, paragraph No. 21 are also instructive
Therefore, we allow the appeals in part and set aside the conviction under Section 364A of the IPC. The judgments of the learned Trial Court and the High Court are modified to the above extent. The appellants are now convicted for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC; i.e., kidnapping and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.2000/-. If the appellants have completed imprisonment of more than seven years with remission and have paid the fine of Rs.2000/-, we direct the appellants to be released forthwith; if not on bail. If not, the appellants shall surrender within a period of four weeks and serve the remainder of the sentence.
PARTY: RAVI DHINGRA v. THE STATE OF HARYANA – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2009 – 1st March, 2023.
URL: Download
Files : Download
