Supreme Court Reduces Life Sentence in Abduction and Attempt to Murder Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated January 3, 2024, modified the conviction of Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav, reducing their life sentence under Section 364A IPC to a ten-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 IPC. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the demand for ransom, which is a crucial element for conviction under Section 364A IPC.

Background of the Case

The case involves the brutal attack on 18-year-old Arjit Sharma, a Class 12 student residing in Durg, Chhattisgarh. On January 2, 2013, the accused, Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav, took Arjit on a motorcycle ride. Late at night, they attempted to strangle him with a clutch wire. Believing him to be dead, they poured petrol on him and set him on fire. Arjit miraculously escaped and was later rescued by bystanders.

The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), and 392/397 (robbery with deadly weapons), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the ingredients of Section 364A IPC were satisfied.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the prosecution proved a demand for ransom to sustain the conviction under Section 364A IPC.
Whether the statements of the victim and other witnesses established the elements required for Section 364A IPC.
Whether the life imprisonment sentence was justified based on the available evidence.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Neeraj Sharma & Ashwani Kumar Yadav)

The appellants, through their counsel, contended that:

The prosecution failed to establish a demand for ransom, which is essential for conviction under Section 364A IPC.
The complainant, Arjit Sharma, did not mention any ransom demand in his initial statements.
The only evidence regarding ransom was a supplementary police statement by the victim, recorded nearly two months later, which cannot be considered reliable.
The trial court and High Court erred in convicting them under Section 364A IPC.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Chhattisgarh)

The State of Chhattisgarh, represented by the prosecution, argued that:

The victim’s father received a ransom call demanding ₹8,00,000 for Arjit’s release.
The victim’s testimony and medical reports confirmed that he was brutally attacked and nearly killed.
The overall circumstances pointed to a case of kidnapping for ransom, justifying the conviction under Section 364A IPC.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the victim’s statements, medical reports, and witness testimonies.

1. Lack of Ransom Demand Evidence

“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 the life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted.”

The Court found that the victim’s initial statements did not mention a ransom demand. His supplementary statement recorded later did not hold significant evidentiary value.

2. Misinterpretation of Witness Testimony

“The complainant himself was examined as PW-6 and he does not speak of a ransom demand in his examination-in-chief.”

The Court noted that the prosecution’s claim of ransom was primarily based on the testimony of the victim’s father, which lacked corroboration.

3. Conviction Under Section 364 IPC Instead of 364A IPC

“We, therefore, partly allow the present appeals to the extent that findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court of conviction under Section 364A of IPC are hereby set aside.”

The Court concluded that while the prosecution established abduction and attempt to murder, it failed to prove the demand for ransom required under Section 364A IPC. Therefore, it modified the conviction to Section 364 IPC, sentencing the accused to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“Appellants’ conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 364A IPC is set aside. They are instead convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years.”

The Court also ordered the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 357A CrPC.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Kidnapping or abduction alone does not constitute an offense under Section 364A IPC; a proven demand for ransom is required.
Victim statements must be consistent, and supplementary statements recorded months later may not hold strong evidentiary value.
Courts must distinguish between abduction with an intent to murder (Section 364 IPC) and kidnapping for ransom (Section 364A IPC).
Compensation under Section 357A CrPC ensures that victims receive financial support for medical and psychological rehabilitation.

This judgment clarifies the legal distinction between kidnapping for ransom and abduction for other purposes, ensuring fair application of the law.

Petitioner Name: Neeraj Sharma & Ashwani Kumar Yadav.
Respondent Name: State of Chhattisgarh.
Judgment By: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Place Of Incident: Durg, Chhattisgarh.
Judgment Date: 03-01-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: neeraj-sharma-&-ashw-vs-state-of-chhattisgar-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-01-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category