Shaik Ahmed Vs State Of Telangana: The Court Analysed The Ingredients Of Section 364A IPC

Date of judgment:
28 June 2021

Judge:
Justice Ashok Bhushan

Parties:
Shaik Ahmed (Appellant)
State Of Telangana (Respondent)

Subject

The questions raised before the court were What are the essential elements of Section 346A that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to secure an accused's conviction under Section 364A IPC? Is it necessary that every ingredient listed in Section 364A, must be proved to secure a conviction under Section 364A, and that failure to meet any of the elements may invalidate a conviction under Section 364A IPC?

Overview

• Prateek Gupta, the victim, was a student in the 6th standard. He went to a picnic organized by the school and returned to school at around 3:00 pm on 3 February 2021. He waited for a regular auto, but unfortunately, the same did not turn up.
• Prateek took another auto driven by the accused (appellant herein) to take him home. He took him to some unknown place. Thereafter called Prateek’s father and demanded a ransom of Rs.2 lakhs to release him.
• The police arrested the accused and filed a charge sheet under Section 364A IPC.
• Learned Sessions Judge after, considering the evidence held that the accused was liable for the offense under Section 364A IPC. He was, sentenced, to life imprisonment for an offense under Section 364A IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
• The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. High Court held that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offense punishable under Section 364A of IPC.
• Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that-

1. The respondent failed to prove all ingredients for conviction under Section 364A. Hence, the conviction under Section 364A is not sustainable.
2. There was neither any evidence nor his conduct that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such a person may be put to death or hurt.
3. That neither the learned Sessions Judge nor the High Court adverted to the essential conditions for conviction under Section 364A.

• Appellant refers to the statement of the victim stated that he was, treated well.
• Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgments given by Sessions Judge and the High Court. She submitted that conviction under Section 364A of the accused does not deserve any interference by this Court.
• The questions raised before the court were-

1. What are the essential elements of Section 346A that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to secure an accused's conviction under Section 364A IPC?
2. Is it necessary that every ingredient listed in Section 364A, must be proved to secure a conviction under Section 364A, and that failure to meet any of the elements may invalidate a conviction under Section 364A IPC?
3. 3 Whether there was any evidence or findings by the Courts that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt.

Legal Provisions

• Section 364A IPC- Kidnapping for ransom, etc
• section 363 of IPC- Punishment for kidnapping

Judgment Analysis

• Under Section 364A, the essential ingredients to convict an accused which are required to be proved are as follows:-

1. Kidnapping or abduction of any person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and,
2. 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,
3. Causes hurt or death to such person 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.

• The court observed that after establishing the first condition, one more condition has to be fulfilled since, after the first condition, the word used is “and”. Thus, in addition to the first condition either condition (ii) or (iii) has to be proved.
• The court stated that no findings were recorded by Sessions Judge that proved condition (ii) was fulfilled. The High Court has not dealt with the grounds taken before it by the accused.
• The court found no evidence, which suggested that the victim was assaulted. There was no reasonable apprehension that the victim may be put to death or hurt.
• Thus, evidence on record did not prove the fulfillment of the second condition of Section 364A.
• The conviction and sentence under Section 364A were set aside. He was convicted for an offense under section 363 of kidnapping.
• The court modified the judgment of the Sessions Judge and the High Court. They sentenced the appellant to seven years, imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

Conclusion

There are three stages in the Section. One is kidnapping or abduction, second is the threat of death coupled with the demand of money, and third when the demand is not met, then causing death. If these three ingredients are available then that will constitute the offense under Section 364 IPC.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement