The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has held that the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not established if the prosecution fails to prove that a demand for ransom was made. The court set aside the life imprisonment sentences of three men convicted under Section 364-A, while upholding their conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru acquitted Khilawan Das Mahant alias Nikhil, Amardas Mahant, and Sanjay Sidar of the charge of kidnapping for ransom. The court found that while the act of kidnapping a minor child was proven, there was no evidence of any subsequent ransom demand. The court maintained their conviction and seven-year sentence for kidnapping and wrongful concealment.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a complaint filed by Ramesh Kumar Agarwal on February 20, 2021. His former cook, Khilawan Das Mahant alias Nikhil, whose services had been terminated two days prior, visited his house on the pretext of collecting a forgotten mobile charger. After retrieving the item, Nikhil enticed the complainant’s six-year-old grandson, Shivansh Agarwal, with the promise of buying him chips and took the child with him on his motorcycle.
When the child did not return by 7:30 PM and Nikhil’s phone was found to be switched off, the family grew apprehensive and lodged a report with the Kharsiya Police Station. An FIR was registered under Section 364-A of the IPC.
The investigation revealed, through CCTV footage and Call Detail Records (CDR), that Nikhil had indeed taken the child. The location of a co-accused, Amardas, was traced moving towards Jharsuguda, Odisha. A coordinated police operation involving checkpoints in Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Jharkhand led to the interception of an Ertiga vehicle near Khunti Police Station in Jharkhand.
The police recovered the kidnapped child, who was found hidden between the seats of the vehicle. The three accused—Khilawan Das Mahant, Amardas Mahant, and Sanjay Sidar—were apprehended. A search of the vehicle yielded a country-made pistol, rope, adhesive tape, and a chemical substance, among other items. The investigation concluded that the accused had conspired to kidnap the child for ransom, with a contingency plan to murder him if their demands were not met.
Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court in Raigarh. The trial court convicted Khilawan Das Mahant, Amardas Mahant, and Sanjay Sidar for offences including kidnapping for ransom (Section 364-A IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. A fourth accused, Pritam Das Mahant, was acquitted. The convicted individuals subsequently appealed the decision in the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
The counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Mr. Ravindra Sharma, and Mr. Chitendra Singh, argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They contended that there were material contradictions in witness testimonies and, crucially, that “there is also no evidence with respect to any ransom call made by the present appellants.” They submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 364-A IPC were missing.
Conversely, the State, represented by Deputy Government Advocate Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, argued that the prosecution’s case was proven. He emphasized that the victim child (PW-14) had clearly identified the accused and supported the prosecution’s narrative. He submitted that the child was recovered from the vehicle in which the appellants were traveling, and the trial court’s conviction was justified.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence on record, including the testimonies of key witnesses. The bench found the testimony of the victim child (PW-14) to be of “great significance.” The child identified accused Nikhil and the other two co-accused, stating that Nikhil had taken him on the pretext of buying chips and then transported him in a car towards Khunti.
The testimonies of police officials PW-9 Doman Tudu (ASI, Jharkhand Police) and PW-12 Vivek Patel (Inspector, Chhattisgarh Police) were found to have conclusively established the recovery of the child from the vehicle in the possession of the three appellants.
The central legal question before the court was whether the offence amounted to kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A IPC or simple kidnapping under Section 363 IPC. The court referred to the definition of kidnapping under Section 361 IPC, noting that taking a minor away from the keeping of a lawful guardian without their consent constitutes the offence.
The bench then delved into the stringent requirements of Section 364-A IPC. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telangana (2021), the High Court emphasized that Section 364-A has distinct components. The act of kidnapping must be followed by a threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of the same, to compel a person to pay a ransom. The court noted the use of the conjunction “and” in the statute, making the threat a mandatory ingredient in addition to the kidnapping itself.
The court observed:
“In the present case, the prosecution’s evidence establishes that the accused/appellants… had deceitfully taken away the victim child… However, from the entire prosecution case and the evidence brought on record, it is not the prosecution’s case nor is there any evidence to show that the kidnapping was done for the purpose of making any ransom demand. There is no allegation of any ransom call having been made to the family members nor any evidence that the accused ever demanded any money or benefit from the family in exchange for releasing the child.”
Based on this finding, the court concluded that a crucial ingredient of Section 364-A was absent. “The prosecution’s case is confined to the act of taking the child and the subsequent recovery, without any link to ransom or extortion, therefore the appellants cannot be convicted for kidnapping for ransom,” the judgment stated.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeals in part. It set aside the conviction and life sentence of all three appellants under Section 364-A/34 IPC, and the conviction of Khilawan Das Mahant under Section 120-B IPC, acquitting them of these charges.
However, the court upheld their conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC and for wrongful concealment of a kidnapped person under Section 368 IPC. The sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment for these offences was maintained, with the court deeming it neither excessive nor unreasonable. The appellants, who have been in jail since February 21, 2021, will serve the remainder of their seven-year sentence.
