Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2015, which has dismissed the Criminal Appeal of the present appellants, upholding the conviction and sentence of the trial court. The two appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 307/120B, 364-A and 392/397 and were sentenced, inter alia, for life imprisonment under Section 364A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). (Para 2)
The case of the prosecution is that appellants had abducted one Arjit Sharma (PW-6), a Class 12th student of KPS School, Durg. The abduction, as per the prosecution, was for ransom, and a dastardly attempt was also made by the accused to kill the victim, although the victim miraculously escaped, but not before sustaining grievous injuries, which eventually led to the amputation of his right leg. (Para 3)
The most important witness in this case is the complainant himself. He is also an injured witness. The injuries sustained by him in the incident match the case of the prosecution. An attempt was made by the two accused to dispose of the body of the victim by burning the body. There were burn injuries on both his legs. The strong ligature mark on his neck was again significant as it is the case of the prosecution that the two accused had tried to strangulate him with the clutch wire. (Para 7)
This court in the case of Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 59 has held that in order to make out an offence under Section 364 A, three conditions must be met:
A) There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction;
B) There is a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or the accused by their conduct give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt
C) Or cause death or hurt to such a person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state or intergovernmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.
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 life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there. It was reiterated by this Court in the case of Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2023) 6 SCC 76.
In the present case, what the prosecution has miserably failed to establish is the demand of ransom. As per the prosecution, the complainant’s father i.e., Praneet Sharma (PW-5) received a phone call from which a demand of ransom was made. The phone call was allegedly traced as being of one Ravi Kumar Dwivedi but no evidence was placed on record to establish the demand of ransom before the Court which was absolutely necessary in view of the law laid done by this Court in Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202. (Para 14)
For making out a case under Section 364-A, the first condition i.e., kidnapping or abduction must be coupled with either the second or the third condition as held by this Court in Shaik Ahmed (supra) [Para 33 induces,]. (Para 15)
However, in order to come under the ambit of Section 364A, something more than abduction is required, which is demand of ransom. We do not find that there was a demand of ransom as alleged by the prosecution. There is no worthwhile evidence placed by the prosecution in this regard. (Para 16)
In our considered opinion both the Trial Court as well as the High Court were completely misdirected in holding this to be, inter alia, a case under Section 364A of the IPC. There was no worthwhile evidence placed by the prosecution on this aspect. The findings of the Courts on this aspect therefore needs to be set aside. 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 the IPC are hereby set aside. We, however, find that the accused had committed an offence under Section 364 IPC, as the offence of abduction in order to murder the victim i.e., PW-6 stands proved. In other words, we convert the findings of conviction under Section 364A to that of Section 364 IPC and sentence the two accused (present appellants) for rigorous imprisonment of Ten years each on this count and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default further imprisonment of three months. The rest of the conviction and sentence that is under Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 120B as well as under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 397 are hereby affirmed. We are also aware that in addition to the sentence, a fine of Rs.50,000/- each against the two accused was imposed by the High Court. We retain the same and direct that the fine be recovered from the present appellants, in default of payment of the fine, the appellants shall undergo further imprisonment of one year each. The above fine shall be thereafter remitted to the victim in accordance with law. (Para 18)
A victim of a crime cannot be treated merely as a prosecution witness. Section 357(1) of Criminal Procedure Code empowers the court to order that the fine amount recovered be given to any person as compensation who has suffered any loss or injury caused due to that offence. In this case, the victim had suffered burn injuries of 45-48% and lost one leg, when he was only eighteen years of age. There may be times when the situation may demand that a substantive amount of compensation be paid to the victim and the convict may not be financially that strong to bear that burden. For such situations, Section 357A was therefore introduced in Criminal Procedure Code for this reason, where compensation to the victims may be paid out of State funds, as the State had the responsibility to protect the victim against the offence that had been committed against the victim of the crime. (Para 19)
In the present case, the victim i.e., PW-6 has suffered grievous injuries, not only this, his left leg below his knee had to be amputated. Consequently, we direct that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) be paid by the State of Chhattisgarh to the victim as compensation under Section 357A of Cr.PC., instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as directed by the High Court. Let the same be done within a period of three months from today. (Para 20)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 13 SC
[2024 INSC 6]
Neeraj Sharma Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No.36 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) NO.5676 OF 2021) -Decided on 03-01-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-STPLWeb-13-SC.pdf
