Kidnapping Conviction Upheld, But Life Sentence For Ransom Quashed Due to Lack of Ransom Demand: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-07-19

Kidnapping Conviction Stands, But Life Sentence for Ransom Overturned by Chhattisgarh High Court

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has modified the life sentences of three men convicted in a child kidnapping case, acquitting them of the graver charge of 'kidnapping for ransom' under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru , held that the prosecution, despite proving the kidnapping, failed to establish the crucial ingredient of a ransom demand.

The court upheld the convictions for kidnapping (Section 363 IPC) and wrongful concealment (Section 368 IPC), maintaining the seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for these offences. The appellants, Khilawan Das Mahant , Amardas Mahant , and Sanjay Sidar , will now serve the remainder of their seven-year term, having been in custody since February 2021.

---

Overview of the Case

The case originates from a judgment by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, who had sentenced the three appellants to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that on February 20, 2021, Khilawan Das Mahant , a former cook in the victim's household, lured the six-year-old child, Shivansh Agarwal, away on the pretext of buying him chips.

Khilawan, along with co-conspirators Amardas Mahant and Sanjay Sidar , then transported the child in a car towards Jharkhand. A swift police investigation, aided by CCTV footage and mobile tracking, led to the interception of their vehicle by the Jharkhand Police. The child was found concealed between the car seats and safely rescued. The trial court found them guilty of kidnapping for ransom, concluding there was a conspiracy to extort money from the child's family.

---

Arguments in the High Court

The appellants’ counsels argued that the prosecution's case lacked the essential elements for a conviction under Section 364A IPC. They contended that while a kidnapping may have occurred, there was a complete absence of evidence proving any ransom call was ever made or any demand for money was communicated to the victim's family. They asserted that without a threat or demand for ransom, the life sentence was unsustainable.

The State, represented by the Deputy Government Advocate, countered that the act of kidnapping a young child, combined with the recovery of items like a country-made pistol and rope, was sufficient to infer an intent to demand ransom. The State leaned heavily on the consistent and credible testimony of the victim child (PW-14) and the police officers involved in the rescue (PW-9 and PW-12), who had established the kidnapping and the appellants' involvement beyond doubt.

---

Court's Reasoning: The Missing Link of 'Ransom'

The High Court meticulously analysed the evidence and legal precedents, particularly the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 364A IPC. The bench noted that Section 364A has three distinct components: 1. The act of kidnapping or abduction. 2. A subsequent threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of the same. 3. The kidnapping and threat are made to compel someone to pay a ransom.

The court cited the Supreme Court in Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telangana , emphasizing that the word "and" connecting the first and second components is crucial. This means that merely proving the kidnapping is not enough; the prosecution must also prove a subsequent threat or demand for ransom.

Applying this principle, the High Court observed:

"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."

The court found that while the testimonies of the victim, his family, and the police firmly established the act of kidnapping and wrongful concealment, the "proverbial link" to a ransom demand was missing.

---

Final Verdict and Implications

Based on this reasoning, the High Court partially allowed the appeals. It concluded:

"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 rather they can be convicted only for kidnapping the minor boy which is punishable under Section 363 of IPC."

Consequently, the convictions and life sentences under Section 364-A/34 IPC for all three appellants, and the conviction under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) for Khilawan Das Mahant , were set aside. Their convictions under Sections 363/34 and 368/34 IPC were upheld, and the sentence was confirmed at seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

This judgment reaffirms the strict standard of proof required for the offence of kidnapping for ransom, underscoring that every ingredient of the offence, particularly the demand for ransom, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant a conviction for the grave charge under Section 364A IPC.