Neeraj Sharma v. Chhattisgarh (2024 INSC 6)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

(Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019)

03 January 2024

[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

Supreme Court Clarifies IPC Section 364-A in Kidnapping Case

This case involves a nuanced analysis of charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly focusing on Section 364-A (kidnapping or abduction for ransom). The court’s findings clarify the necessary ingredients for the offence and appropriate sentencing under related provisions. Here are the key takeaways:

Key Legal Provisions and Findings

1. Section 364-A IPC (Kidnapping or Abduction for Ransom):

• Conditions for Section 364-A:
  • Act of kidnapping or abduction.
  • A demand for ransom.
  • Threat to the victim’s life, or actual hurt or murder.
• Court’s Observation:
  • While the prosecution established abduction, robbery, and attempted murder, there was no evidence of a demand for ransom.
  • The absence of this essential element invalidates the charge under Section 364-A.
  • Conversion of Charges:
    • Conviction under Section 364-A was set aside.
    • Offence reclassified under Section 364 (abduction in order to murder), as the intent to murder was proven.

2. Section 364 IPC (Abduction to Commit Murder):

• Court’s Findings:
  • Abduction with the intent to murder the victim was proven through:
    • Injuries matching the prosecution’s case (burns and ligature marks).
    • Evidence of deceit and subsequent violent acts.
  • Sentencing:
    • 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with an additional three months imprisonment in case of default.

3. Section 357 and 357-A CrPC (Victim Compensation):

• Victim Compensation Framework:
  • Section 357(1): Enables courts to use fines for compensating victims for their injuries or losses.
  • Section 357-A: Introduced to provide State-funded compensation where convicts cannot bear the financial burden.
• Court’s Observations:
  • The victim, aged 18, suffered grave injuries (burns and amputation of a leg) due to the crime.
  • The court increased the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, payable by the State under Section 357-A.

4. Related Charges and Sentencing:

• Sections 307/120B IPC (Attempt to Murder with Criminal Conspiracy):
  • Conviction upheld based on the intent and violent acts committed.
• Sections 392/397 IPC (Robbery with Use of Deadly Weapons):
  • Conviction affirmed due to the proven robbery during abduction.

Key Clarifications on Abduction Under IPC:

• Abduction Alone Is Not an Offence:
  • Abduction becomes punishable only when combined with an unlawful act, such as:
    • Section 364: Abduction to murder.
    • Section 365: Abduction to wrongfully confine.
    • Section 366: Abduction for forced marriage.
    • Section 364-A: Abduction for ransom, with threat or actual harm.

Significance of the Judgment:

• On Section 364-A:
  • Clarified that a ransom demand is a mandatory element for conviction.
  • Prevented wrongful application of laws designed for severe offences involving ransom.
• On Victim Rights:
  • Emphasized the duty of the State to compensate victims of heinous crimes, recognizing their rights beyond being mere witnesses.
• Balanced Sentencing:
  • Appropriate sentences were handed for proven offences, ensuring justice for both the victim and the accused.

This case elaborates on the importance of precise legal interpretation and upholds the principle that every element of an offence must be conclusively proven for a conviction. It also advances the jurisprudence on victim compensation and State accountability.

Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 Apex Court summed up the principles which are to be kept in mind when appreciating the evidence of an injured eye-witness. This court held as follows:

“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

(a)The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

(b)Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

(c)The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

(d)The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

(e)If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

(f)The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.”

A statement cannot be read as a dying declaration because the person making this statement or declaration had ultimately survived. This supplementary statement given to the investigating officer is nothing more than a statement under Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of A.P. (1996) 6 SCC 2413; Sunil Kumar and Others v. State of M.P. (1997) 10 SCC 5704; Shrawan Bhadaji Bhirad and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 SCC 565; State of U.P. v. Veer Singh and Others (2004) 10 SCC 1176 and S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 8 SCC 2337.

Case Law

Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355; Vikram Singh v. Union of India [2015] 10 SCR 816:(2015) 9 SCC 502; Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 59; Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202 – relied on.

Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2023) 6 SCC 76; Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of A.P. [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 273:(1996) 6 SCC 241; Sunil Kumar and Others v. State of M.P. [1997] 1 SCR 589:(1997) 10 SCC 570; Shrawan Bhadaji Bhirad and Others v. State of Maharashtra [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 158:(2002) 10 SCC 56; State of U.P. v. Veer Singh and Others [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 790:(2004) 10 SCC 117; S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010] 9 SCR 356:(2010) 8 SCC 233 – referred to.