Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Inadequate Evidence of Ransom Demand: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 364-A IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the conviction under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for appellants Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma, cited a lack of substantial evidence to support the ransom demand crucial for upholding a conviction under the stringent Section 364-A.

The appellants were initially convicted for the abduction and attempted murder of Arjit Sharma, a Class 12th student, who suffered severe injuries leading to the amputation of his right leg. The High Court of Chhattisgarh had upheld their life imprisonment sentences under Section 364-A IPC, which pertains to kidnapping or abduction with ransom demands. However, the Supreme Court, after meticulous examination, noted, "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."

In their landmark judgment dated January 3, 2024, the Court observed, "The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are 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." It was determined that this crucial aspect was not satisfactorily established by the prosecution.

Supreme Court converted the conviction from Section 364-A to Section 364 IPC, which covers kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. The appellants have been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. Additionally, the Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code, recognizing the severe impact on the victim's life.

Date of Decision: 03 January 2024

NEERAJ SHARMA VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

 

Latest Legal News