Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Neeraj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019
WITH
Ashwani Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5676 of 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307/120B, 364-A and 392/397 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357A – Abduction for ransom – Attempt to kill victim – Life sentence – Complainant is also an injured witness – Injuries sustained by him in incident match case of prosecution – Attempt was made by two accused to dispose of body of victim by burning body – There were burn injuries on both his legs – Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by defence to doubt evidence of injured witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial – Case of abduction and attempt to murder are well established by prosecution – Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – However, evidence placed by prosecution to establish a case under Section 364-A is in form of a phone call to father of victim – What prosecution has miserably failed to establish is demand of ransom – Demand of ransom does not come in examination in chief of complainant – There was no evidence at all before Trial Court to have convicted appellants under Section 364A, IPC – Conviction of appellants under Section 364A is not made out and is liable to be set aside – Appellants hereby convicted under Section 364 of IPC, instead of Section 364A IPC – Appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of Ten years each on this count and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each – Amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid by State of Chhattisgarh to victim as compensation under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- as directed by High Court. (Paras 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,17, 18, 19 and 20)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 357 and 357A – Payment of compensation to victim of crime – Victim of a crime cannot be treated merely as a prosecution witness – There may be times when situation may demand that a substantive amount of compensation be paid to victim and convict may not be financially that strong to bear that burden – For such situations, Section 357A was introduced in Criminal Procedure Code for this reason, where compensation to victims may be paid out of State funds – State had responsibility to protect victim against offence that had been committed against victim of crime. (Para 19)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 162 – Dying declaration – Statement given by complainant/victim was firstly to investigating officer – It cannot be called “a dying declaration” simply because victim had mercifully survived – This statement cannot be read as a dying declaration because person making this statement or declaration had ultimately survived – This supplementary statement given to Investigating Officer is nothing more than a statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2018 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2015, which has dismissed Criminal Appeal of present appellants, upholding conviction and sentence of trial court. 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 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Ashwani Kumar Yadav shall be released, subject to payment of fine/compensation, provided he has completed his 10 years of imprisonment and if not required in any other case. Order dated 17.09.2019 of this Court up to the extent of suspending sentence of appellant Neeraj Sharma and granting him bail is hereby vacated. Bail bonds of appellant Neeraj Sharma stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender within two weeks from today to complete his remaining sentence.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The testimony of an injured witness is considered highly valuable in a criminal trial unless there are compelling reasons or evidence presented by the defense to doubt its credibility (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
A victim of a crime cannot be treated merely as a prosecution witness; their statement and injuries are significant evidence that must be carefully considered (!) .
The case involves allegations of abduction, attempt to murder, and related offenses, with the prosecution establishing the facts beyond reasonable doubt, including the injuries sustained by the victim and the attempt to dispose of his body by burning (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence shows that the victim was abducted, grievously injured, and attempted to be murdered, with injuries consistent with the prosecution's case (!) (!) (!) .
The statement given by the victim before an Executive Magistrate, despite being made while the victim was grievously injured, is not a "dying declaration" as the victim survived; hence, it cannot be relied upon as such (!) (!) .
The prosecution failed to establish the demand of ransom, which is a necessary element for conviction under the specific offense of kidnapping for ransom (Section 364A of IPC). The evidence of a phone call demanding ransom was not sufficiently proved, and the key witness's statement did not mention any ransom demand in court or in initial statements (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The conviction under Section 364A of IPC is not sustainable due to the lack of proof of the ransom demand; therefore, the conviction is set aside, and the offense is reclassified under Section 364 of IPC, which pertains to kidnapping or abducting with intent to murder (!) (!) (!) .
The sentences for the offenses under Sections 307/120B, 392/397, and other related sections are maintained (!) .
The court emphasizes that victims should be compensated adequately for their injuries and suffering. In this case, the victim, who suffered severe burn injuries and the loss of a limb, is entitled to compensation from the State funds under Section 357A of Cr.P.C., and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is directed to be paid to him within three months (!) (!) (!) .
The order for the release of the accused is subject to the payment of the fine and compensation, and the existing bail order is vacated. The accused must surrender to complete their remaining sentences (!) .
The importance of the victim's statement and injuries as evidence is underscored, but the legal requirement for proof of ransom demand for Section 364A is critical and was not met in this case (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. 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’).
The third accused in this case, called Ravi Kumar Dwivedi, was acquitted by the trial court.
3. 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.
The complainant/victim (PW-6) was at the relevant time residing as a paying guest in the house of Smt. Seema Singh (PW-7) at Priyadarshni Nagar, Durg. The accused, Neeraj Sharma and complainant were known to each other and on 02.01.2013, the two decided to go on a motorcycle ride to Nehru Nagar and Yugandar College, Rajnandgaon. The complainant was picked from his guest house by the two accused i.e. Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav and the three took off on their motorcycle to a place called “Doundilohara.” At about 1:00 am in the night when the complainant was trying to ease himself, the two accused made an attempt to kill him by throttling his neck by the clutch wire of the motorcycle. As a result, the complainant fell on the ground unconscious and the appellants thinking that the complainant had died, poured petrol on his body and set him on fire.
As per the prosecution case the body was set on fire, but before setting the body on fire, the complainant/victim’s mobile phone and cash of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) were looted from him, by the two accused Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav.
4. The complainant, however, was not dead, but as it turned out managed to escape from the scene and was later rescued by strangers whom he met on his way while escaping who helped him call an ambulance and he was taken to Doundilohara Hospital from where he was referred to Rajnandgaon and ultimately to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai. While he was at Doundilohara hospital, the doctor (PW-4) who had examined the complainant had also informed the Police and therefore a “Dehati Nalishi”1 [Dehati Nalishi is something akin to a zero FIR] (Ex.P/12) was recorded on 03.01.2013. The doctor PW-4 (Jai Kumar Chunarkar) who had examined the complainant/victim at Doundilohara hospital, notes the following burn injuries in his report (Ex.P/09):
“Burn injuries were found on frontal and backside of both legs of the injured and skin of that spots had peeled out from surface. Burn injuries and many burning blisters on the lower portion of his belly and burn injury was on the waist and burn injury was on the upper portion of right side on the chest and a ligature mark like a lining was present on the frontal portion of neck of the injured, which was in light red colour, it had length of 122 to 14 cms and abrasion injuries were found on the frontal portion of his neck which had size of 3x2, 2x2 and 2x2 cms respectively. In this connection he had submitted his Report (Exhibit P-9).”
There were first degree burn injuries on the body of the victim as the burnt area was 45% to 48% of his body. Statement of the victim (PW-6) was recorded before a Nayab Tehsildar on 04.01.2013 at 12 noo
(1) Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by defence to doubt evidence of injured witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial.(2) Vic....
For a conviction under Section 364-A IPC, the prosecution must prove both the act of kidnapping and the existence of a threat to cause death or injury, as both elements are conjunctively required by ....
The prosecution must prove the specific intent and compulsion required for the offences under Section 366 and Section 452 of the IPC. Thorough investigation and the recording of the victim's statemen....
Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A requires proof of abduction and threats of death or harm, which was established in this case.
The prosecution must prove all elements of Section 364(A) IPC, including a clear connection between the act of hurt and the ransom demand; failure to do so warrants a lesser charge.
The prosecution must prove all elements of kidnapping for ransom, including demand for ransom and threats to life, to sustain a conviction under Section 364-A IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
