2015 Supreme(SC) 812

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.
Vikram Singh @ Vicky & Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2013
Decided on : 21-08-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
A decision of the Supreme Court giving finality to the issue cannot be re-agitated in a writ jurisdiction before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Resort could however only be taken to Articles 129 and 142.
Section 364A IPC is wide enough to cover not only demand for ransom as a part of any terrorist act but also for monetary gain from a private individual.
Ejusdem generis principle of construction does not apply to interpretation of ‘any other person’ in section 364A, IPC.
Section 364A cannot be restricted to the ‘government’ or ‘foreign State’ or ‘international inter-governmental organisations’ only.
Penal provision in section 364A cannot be said to infringe Article 21.
Validity of a provision cannot be challenged on hypothetical situations.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 and 226 – In the criminal appeal appellants raised the contention that section 364A IPC was not attracted to their case was rejected – Attaining finality – Writ petition raising the same contention was not maintainable – Resort could only be taken to Articles 129 and 142. (Para 8, 10)

       (2002) 4 SCC 388 – Relied upon

       AIR 1967 SC 1; AIR 1963 SC 996 – Referred

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A – Provision containing the expression ‘any person’ ab initio – “Foreign state or international inter-governmental organisation” added in 1994 without deleting ‘any person’ – Provision wide enough to cover not only demand for ransom as a part of any terrorist act but also for monetary gain from a private individual. (Para 18, 19)

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A r/w section 383 – Contention that section 383 effectively deal with all types of extortion hence section 364A applies only to deal with terrorist related ransom situations and not ordinary kidnapping like instant one – Ingredients of kidnapping for ransom defined in section 364A not covered by section 383 – Hence the cases like the instant one are covered by section 384A. (Para 22)

       (d) Interpretation of statute – Ejusdem generis – A rule of constriction and not rule of law – Applicable only when preceding words form a genus. (Para 23)

       (1989) 2 SCC 458; (1920) 3 KB 321; (1969) 3 SCC 99; (1978) 4 SCC 16 – Relied upon

       (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A – Expression ‘any other person’ – Preceded by a single expression ‘government’ not forming a genus – Ejusdem generis principle of construction does not apply. (Para 26)

       (2002) 4 SCC 297 – Relied upon

       (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A r/w section 11 – Person – As per section 11 ‘person’ would include a company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not, apart from natural persons – Its meaning cannot be restricted to the ‘government’ or ‘foreign State’ or ‘international inter-governmental organisations’ only. (Para 29)

       (g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A – Challenge to constitutional validity – Section 364A prescribing alternative punishments of death penalty or life imprisonment – Courts have a discretion in matter of punishment – Whether ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution – Need of proportionality of punishment with gravity of offence is well settled – Offences of Kidnapping for ransom quite often connected with terrorism on rise – Necessitating introduction of section 364A – Penalty of death may be awarded only where kidnapping or abduction has resulted in the death either of the victim or anyone else in the course of the commission of the offence – Provision cannot be said to infringe Article 21. (Para 33, 50)

       (2004) 8 SCC 95; (2007) 5 SCC 634; (2008) 2 SCC 246; (2012) 1 SCC 406 – Relied upon

       (1983) 2 SCC 277 – Distinguished

       (h) Constitutional law – Validity of a provision – A legislation is presumed to be constitutionally valid – Burden of showing the contrary lying heavily upon any one who challenges its validity –Validity of a provision cannot be challenged on hypothetical situations. (Para 34, 51)

       (1981) 1 SCC 107; (1980) 2 SCC 684; (2005) 8 SCC 1; 217 US 349; 54 L.Ed 793; 30 S. Ct 544 (1910); 647 458 US 782 (1982); 433 US 584 (1977); 463 US 277, 77 Led 2d 637, 103 S Ct 3001; 501 US 957; 445 U.S 263; 538 US 11; (1987) 1 SCR 1045; (1991) 3 SCR 485 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced to death for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction and sentence awarded to them was affirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in appeal and eventually by Supreme Court.

       The appellants then filed Writ Petition (Crl.) before Supreme Court for a declaration that Section 364A inserted in the IPC by Act 42 of 1993 was ultra vires the Constitution to the extent the same prescribes death sentence for anyone found guilty. The petitioner further prayed for quashing the death sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court and by Supreme Court in Criminal Appeals No.1396-1397 of 2008. A mandamus directing commutation of the sentence awarded to the petitioner to imprisonment for life was also prayed for.

       The writ petition was eventually withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court for redress.

       The appellant, thereafter, moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying for a mandamus striking down Section 364A of the IPC and for an order restraining the execution of the death sentence awarded to them. Reopening of the case of the appellants and commutation of the death sentence for imprisonment for life were also prayed for in the writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed the said petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       No interference is warranted. Section 364A IPC is valid.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.