What are the essential ingredients of an offence of Kidnapping for ransom U/S 364-A of IPC?

33. After noticing the statutory provision of Section 364-A and the law laid down by this Court in the above noted cases, we conclude that the essential ingredients to convict an accused under Section 364-A which are required to be proved by the prosecution are as follows:

(i) Kidnapping or abduction of any person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and

(ii) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or;

(iii) causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or any Governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.

Thus, after establishing first condition, one more condition has to be fulfilled since after first condition, word used is “and”. Thus, in addition to first condition either Condition (ii) or (iii) has to be proved, failing which conviction under Section 364-A cannot be sustained.”

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No. 987 of 2009

Ravi Dhingra Vs State of Haryana 

Decided on March 1, 2023

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 199

Print Page

Supreme court: In case of Kidnapping For Ransom, it is Necessary To Prove Threat To Cause Death Or Harm For Conviction

 After noticing the statutory provision of Section

364A and the law laid down by this Court in the above

noted cases, we conclude that the essential

ingredients to convict an accused under Section 364A

which are required to be proved by prosecution are as

follows:-

(i) Kidnapping or abduction of any person or

keeping a person in detention after such

kidnapping or abduction; and

(ii) threatens to cause death or hurt to such

person, or by his conduct gives rise to a

reasonable apprehension that such person may

be put to death or hurt or;

(iii) causes hurt or death to such person in order

to compel the Government or any foreign State

or any Governmental organization or any other

person to do or abstain from doing any act or

to pay a ransom.

34. Thus, after establishing first condition, one

more condition has to be fulfilled since after first

condition, word used is “and”. Thus, in addition to

first condition either condition (ii) or (iii) has to

be proved, failing which conviction under Section

364A cannot be sustained.

35. The second condition which is “and threatens to

cause a death or hurt to such person, or by his

conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that

such person may be put to death or hurt” is relevant

for consideration in this case since appellant has

confined his submission only regarding nonfulfillment

of this condition. 

39. The High Court has not dealt with the grounds

taken before it by the accused that no threat to

cause death or hurt was extended by the accused. From

the judgment of the high court, thus, it can be said

that there is no finding regarding fulfillment of

condition No.2. Both the Courts having not held that

condition No.2 as noted above was found established

on the evidence led before the Court the conviction

under Section 364A become unsustainable. The present

is not a case where applicability of condition No.

(iii), i.e., “or causes hurt or death” is even

claimed. Thus, fulfillment of condition No.(ii) was

necessary for conviction under Section 364A.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.533 OF 2021

SHAIK AHMED  Vs  STATE OF TELANGANA 

Author: ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

Dated: JUNE 28, 2021.

Print Page

Whether offence of kidnapping for ransom is to be proved in three stages?

The important ingredient of Section 364A is the abduction or kidnapping, as the case may be. Thereafter, a threat to the kidnapped/abducted that if the demand for ransom is not made then the victim is likely to be put to death and in the event death is caused, the offence of Section 364A is complete. There are three stages in this Section, one is the kidnapping or abduction, second is threat of death coupled with the demand of money and lastly when the demand is not made, then causing death. if the three ingredients are available, that will constitute the offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. 

Supreme Court of India

Vishwanath Gupta vs State Of Uttaranchal on 21 March, 2007

Bench: A.K. Mathur, Lokeshwar Singh Panta

Citation;2007CriLJ2296, JT2007(5)SC48,

 2007N.C.C.603, 2007(5)SCALE114,

 (2007)11SCC633, 

Print Page

When offence of kidnapping for ransom is proved?

 We would however like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Akram Khan v. State of West Bengal reported in MANU/SC/1470/2011 : 2012(1) SCC 406.

"28) In Malleshi vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0758/2004 : (2004) 8 SCC 95, while considering the ingredients of Section 364A IPC, this Court held as under:

12. To attract the provisions of Section 364-A what is required to be proved is: (1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; (2) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.....

To pay a ransom, as stated in the above referred Section, in the ordinary sense means to pay the price or demand for ransom. This would show that the demand has to be communicated.
29) We have already pointed out the evidence of PW-3 that he had received 8 or 9 calls from the accused persons demanding ransom for release of his son and the evidence of PW-7, an employee of a public telephone booth, also corroborates with the evidence of PW-3 who deposed that the calls were made on several occasions by the appellant from the telephone booth and on 2 or 3 occasions along with the child.
30) In Vinod vs. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/7005/2008 : AIR 2008 SC 1142, while reiterating the principles enunciated in Malleshi (supra), this Court accepted the case of the prosecution and confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed under Section 364A IPC.
31) Though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case falls only under Section 363, namely, mere kidnapping and not under Section 364A i.e., Kidnapping for ransom, in the light of the acceptable evidence led in by the prosecution, relied on and accepted by the trial Court and the High Court, we reject the said contention.

27. It is not necessary for the prosecution to establish the offence u/s. 364-A of IPC that the abductors have actually extort some ransom and in not fulfilling the demand of ransom the abductee had been resulted in death. But the prosecution has to prove that the abductee was kept in detention and threatened to cause death or hurt in order to extort ransom and communicates that demand for ransom.

28. In the present case the prosecution has proved all the three ingredients of section 364-A of IPC which are enunciated in Malleshi's case. Thus the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants has no force that the case falls under 365 of IPC and not under section 364A of IPC.

 Citation: 2015CriLJ1418, 2015(1)JLJ134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
DIVISION BENCH

Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2008

Decided On: 05.01.2015

 Balindar Kumar
Vs.
 State of Madhya Pradesh

Coram:Shantanu Kemkar and J.K. Jain, JJ.

Print Page