Blog

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No: Criminal Appeal NO. 1420 OF 2019

Decided on:  3 January, 2024

CORAM: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

 

 

Facts of the Case

The case, presided over by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma, involved the appellate challenge to the Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment, which had dismissed the criminal appeal, thereby affirming the conviction and sentencing imposed by the trial court. The appellant, in this instance, engaged in the abduction of Arjit Sharma with the intention of ransom, coupled with a heinous attempt to fatally harm the victim. Arjit Sharma, however, managed to miraculously escape, sustaining grievous injuries that necessitated the amputation of his right leg. The trial court found the accused appellant guilty of offenses under Sections 307/120B, 364A, and 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), imposing life imprisonment, particularly for the significant offense under Section 364-A IPC. The High Court upheld this decision.

 

Legal Provisions

In case of Neeraj Sharma the legal provisions involved are Section 364-A: Pertaining to kidnapping or abducting for ransom. Sections 307 and 120B: Attempt to murder (307) read with criminal conspiracy (120B). Sections 392 and 397: Robbery (392) read with dacoity (397) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Issues

Whether the elements of the offense under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are satisfied in this Case?

The main elements of kidnapping for ransom are the abduction, the demand for money, and the threat to the abducted person’s life or safety. This section addresses kidnapping for ransom. To determine if these components are present, a thorough analysis of the facts and supporting evidences is required.

Courts Analysis and Decision

 

The Supreme Court, in a pronouncement, clarified that the act of abduction simpliciter may not inherently constitute an offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, it affirmed that the commission of abduction transforms into a punishable offense when conjoined with another act. The Court delineated the essential elements that the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing not only the act of kidnapping or abduction but also the subsequent demand for ransom, coupled with a credible threat to the life of the abducted individual. The Court underscored that a victim of a crime should not be merely treated as a prosecution witness. Section 357(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) empowers the court to order the recovery of fines and direct their allocation as compensation to individuals who have suffered losses or injuries due to the offense. In the present case, the victim sustained burn injuries of 45-48% and lost a leg at the age of eighteen. The bench further expounded that there are situations where substantial compensation may be warranted for the victim, even if the convicted party lacks the financial means to bear such burdens. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disburse an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim as compensation under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C, deviating from the High Court’s directive of Rs.1,00,000/-.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Komal Goswami

 

Click here to read the judgement