LexNEERAJ SHARMA versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 40 : 2024 INSC 6 Case Details Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 1420 Of 2019) 03 January 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellants, inter alia, for offence u/s.364-A, Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-A – Conditions to be met to make out offence u/s.364-A – Conviction of the appellants u/ ss.307/120B, 364-A and 392/397, IPC – Prosecution if proved its case u/s.364-A beyond reasonable doubt: Held: In the present case, the most important witness is the complainant himself-an injured witness, who was an 18 year old boy who trusted his friends (appellants), not aware that he was being taken by deceit by his friends who had planned his murder – Unless there are compelling circumstances/evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial – Injuries sustained by the complainant match the case of the prosecution – An attempt was made by the appellants 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 – Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as regards robbery, abduction and attempt to murder – However, in order to make out an offence u/s.364-A, the necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, 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 – Prosecution miserably failed to establish the demand of ransom – No worthwhile evidence placed by the prosecution in [2024] 1 S.C.R. 41 NEERAJ SHARMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH this regard – There was no evidence at all to have convicted the appellants u/s.364A – Trial Court and the High Court completely misdirected in holding the present case to be a case u/s.364-A – Findings of conviction u/s.364A converted to that of s.364, as the appellants had committed an offence u/s.364 as the offence of abduction in order to murder the victim stood proved – Appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years each on this count and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default further imprisonment of three months – Rest of the conviction and sentence u/s.307 r/w s.120B as well as u/s.392 r/w s.397, affirmed – Fine imposed retained. [Paras 7, 9, 11, 14, 16 and 18] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.362, 364, 364-A, 365, 366 – Abduction simpliciter not an offence, becomes a punishable offence when combined with another act: Held: While abduction simpliciter may not technically be an offence under the IPC, it becomes a punishable offence when it is combined with another act – Abduction in order to commit murder is an offence u/s.364 – Abduction is an offence if done with an intent to secretly or wrongfully confine a person u/s.365, or when done to compel a woman for marriage etc. u/s.366 – s.364-A is an offence where kidnapping or abduction is made and a person is put to death or hurt; or a person is threatened with death or actually murdered, on demand of ransom – Clarified, s.364-A does not merely cover acts of terrorism against the Government or Foreign State but it also covers cases where the demand of ransom is made not as a part of a terrorist act but for monetary gains for a private individual – Incorporation of s.364-A discussed. [Para 12] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.357(1), 357-A: Held: A victim of a crime cannot be treated merely as a prosecution witness – s.357(1) 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 – 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, s.357A was therefore introduced, 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 committed against the victim of the crime – In the present case, the victim suffered burn injuries of 45-48
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.