UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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