Person guilty of 'kidnapping for ransom' under Section 364A IPC only if he threatens to hurt or cause death of victim: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that to prove an offence of 'kidnapping for ransom' under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) it is necessary to prove that along with kidnapping, the kidnapper also threatened to cause death of the victim or hurt the victim (Shaik Ahmed vs State of Telangana)..A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy stated that for proving an offence under Section 364A, fulfillment of the following conditions are essential:(i) Kidnapping or abduction of any person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and(ii) threatening 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..The top court noted that after establishing first condition, one more condition has to be fulfilled since after first condition, word used is “and”. Thus, in addition to the first condition either condition (ii) or (iii) has to be proved, failing which conviction under Section 364A cannot be sustained..In the present case, a 6th standard student from Secunderabad was kidnapped for ransom. The father of the accused had gone to the accused to handover the ransom when the police apprehended the accused. He was later charged for offence under Section 364A. Sessions Judge held that prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 364A IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The accused filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on August 6, 2019 leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. .The accused contended that that no threat to cause death or hurt was extended by the accused as required under condition (ii) and hence Section 364A will not lie. .The Court noted that neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court dealt with this aspect at all.."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.(ii). " the Court observed. .The Court noted that there was neither any threat to cause death or hurt, nor was the child actually hurt."Both the Courts having not held that condition No.(ii) as noted above was found established on the evidence led before the Court the conviction under Section 364A become unsustainable," the judgment said. Hence, it acquitted the accused for offence under Section 364A. .However, the top court upheld the conviction under Section 363 of IPC considering the offence of 'kidnapping' was proven and thus imposed punishment of seven years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000.."We, thus, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 364A. However, from the evidence on record regarding kidnapping, it is proved that accused had kidnapped the victim for ransom, demand of ransom was also proved. Even though offence under Section 364A has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt but the offence of kidnapping has been fully established to which effect the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a categorical finding," the Court ruled..[Read Judgment]