Table - 364A IPC

S.No Case Title Citation Facts Charg TC HC SC Reason (SC)

es
01 Ranjeet Kumar 2015 SCC 5 y/o boy Section S.364A: Confirm Reaffir “ Ordinarily, courts
Ram v. State of OnLine was 364A, A-5 & ed med do not give much
Bihar SC 500 kidnappe 302/34, A-3 LI Sentenc sentenc credence to the
d when 120B, & 10k e of A1, e identification made
he was 201 IPC fine A3 & awarded in the court for the
playing A4 to A3 first time; but the
with his 7 S.302/3 A5 u/s identification of the
y/o sister 4: A-5 Commu 364A, accused for the first
and later Death; ted 302, time in court is
murdered Death to 201 permissible in law.
by 5 Acc. S.364A/ LI of But the said
Call for 120B: A1 A1- S. principle has to be
Ransom A-1, A- 364A, applied in the facts
was made 2 & A-4 Acquitt 302/34 and circumstances
after 3 LI ed A2 of each case.” (Para
months of &10k for A4 - 13)
incident. fine defence Acquitt
of alibi ed “When the trial
S. court has
302/34 ascertained the
A1, A3 discernment of
& A4 PW2 and has
RLI & formed an opinion
10k fine that PW2- Rubi
Kumari is
competent to testify
and then recorded
her evidence, we
see no reason to
discredit PW2’s
testimony. PW2
though sole
witness, by
concurrent findings
courts below found
her evidence
unassailable and
we find no ground
to take a different
view.” (Para 14)

“ It is well settled
that in criminal
 trials even if the
investigation is
defective, the rest
of the evidence
must be scrutinized
independently of
the impact of the
defects in the
investigation
otherwise the
criminal trial will
plummet to the
level of the
investigation.
Criminal trials
should not be made
casualties for any
lapses committed
by the investigating
officer.” (Para 21)

“Corpus delecti in
some cases may
not be possible to
be traced or
recovered. If the
recovery of a dead
body is an absolute
necessity to convict
an accused, in
many cases the
culprits would go
unpunished as the
accused would
manage to see that
the dead body is
destroyed or not
recovered. Any
lapse in recovery of
the dead body or
missing link qua
the dead body will
not enure to the
benefit of the
accused.” (Para 22)

02. Harpal Singh v. 2016 SCC Four Acc. Sections Convict Affirme Affirme “ The evidence of
State of Punjab OnLine kidnappe 364A, ed d the d the the victim (PW1)
SC 1293 d young 392, accused judgme judgme as a whole, in our
boy at 395, persons’ nt of TC nts of estimate, is
gunpoint 397, and both the truthful, having
for 412, acquitte lower regard to the details
ransom in 465, d one courts. provided with
a car. 471, (Rupind accompanying
And, four 474, er Pal) clarity and
other 120B conviction. His
assisted IPC One elaborate testimony
in the died not only has
commissi S. 25, during projected the stage-
on of the 27 the trial wise developments
offence. Arms and one following his
Act is abduction till his
Victim proclai release, the same
later med has remained
identified offender unshaken
the . substantially even
accused by his cross-
persons. examination. This
witness not only
had the opportunity
of seeing his
abductors but also
had heard their
exchanges by
referring to their
nick names. He
was in their
company and under
their surveillance
for almost two days
in course whereof
they not only
interacted with him
but also had closely
followed his
conversion with his
father on more than
one occasion on the
aspect of ransom.
Apart from the fact
that there is
nothing convincing
on record to even
infer any false
implication of the
accused persons,
we are of the
unhesitant opinion
that the mere
omission on the
part of the victim to
mention at the first
instance the name
of appellant Harpal
Singh @ Chhota,
having regard to
the charge of
conspiracy and the
concerted steps, to
actualise the same
is of no fatal
bearing on the
prosecution case,
more particularly
he having
named/identified
him at the trial as
one of the
perpetrators of the
offence. In this
perspective, the
omission on the
part of the
investigating
agency to hold the
TIP is not fatal, in
the facts and
circumstances of
the case.” (Para 56)

“ This Court in
Anvar P.V. (supra)
has held in no
uncertain terms that
the evidence
relating to
electronic record
being a special
provision, the
general law on
secondary evidence
under Section 63
read with Section
65 of the Act
would have to yield
thereto. It has been
propounded that
any electric record
in the form of
secondary evidence
cannot be admitted
in evidence unless
the requirements of
Section 65B are
satisfied. This
conclusion of ours
is inevitable in
view of the
exposition of law
pertaining to
Sections 65A and
65B of the Act as
above.” (Para 65)

“ As would be
patent from the
above excerpt that
qua a charge of
conspiracy, it is not
necessary that all
the conspirators
should know each
and every detail of
the plot so long as
they are co-
participators in the
main object thereof
and it is also not
necessary that all
of them should
participate from the
inception of the
stratagem till the
end, the
determinative
factor, being unity
of object or
purpose and their
participation at
different stages.
Such is therefore
the encompassing
sweep of
culpability of an
offence of
 conspiracy, if
proved, even from
the established
attendant
circumstances.”
(Para 69)

03 Vinod v. State of (2015) 3 Ten S. 362, Convict Upheld Upheld “ When the
Haryana SCC 138 persons 364A, ed the the HC evidence on record
kidnappe accused convicti decision is analysed in the
d a 9 y/o persons on and of non- background of
boy when u/s the interfere Section 364-A
he was 364A sentenc nce Indian Penal Code,
out to and e. the inevitable
play. The awarded conclusion is that
Appellant LI and the prosecution has
was Rs 1000 clearly established
declared fine. commission of the
proclaime said offence.
d Considering the
offender alarming rise in
but was kidnapping of
later young children for
convicted ransom, the
along the legislature has in
others. its wisdom
provided for
stringent sentence.
Therefore, the High
Court rightly
refused to interfere
in the matter. In
our view, the
impugned
judgment of the
High Court does
not suffer from any
infirmity to warrant
interference. The
appeal fails and is
dismissed.
“ (Para 32)

04 Jaipal v. State of MANU/S Appellant 363A, Convict Affirme Appeal “ Ms. S. Janani,
Haryana C/0940/20 along 364A, ed and d the Dismiss learned counsel
02 with his IPC awarded decision ed. appearing for the
minor son RLI and of TC appellant,
kidnappe 10000 contended before
d a boy of fine and us that there has
5 years in been delay in
and default lodging FIR in this
sought of case. She pointed
ransom paymen out that the child
thereafter. t of 10k, was missing from
During further 28 April 1994
the course 6 whereas FIR was
of months lodged after two
investigat of RI days later. She
ion it was contended that
found that there is no
the satisfactory
appellant explanation for the
has delay in lodging
kidnappe the FIR. We have
d another perused the record
child and the evidence in
previousl this case and we
y as well. find that this
complaint made by
the learned counsel
is not correct. As a
matter of fact PWs.
4 and 10 have
explained the steps
taken between 28th
and 30th April
1994 for searching
the child before
lodging the police
complaint. Learned
counsel thereafter
contended that the
disclosure
statement allegedly
made not properly
proved inasmuch as
the said document
was attested by
PWs. 4 and 10 and
Gaje Singh,
sarpanch. She
contends while
PWs. 4 and 10 are
interested
witnesses and the
prosecution having
failed to examine
Gaje Singh who
was the only
independent
witness no reliance
can be placed on
the so called
disclosure
statement. Learned
additional sessions
judge has
considered this
argument and has
for good reasons
chosen to place
reliance on this
piece of evidence
and we find no
reason why it
should not be
accepted. As a
matter of fact that it
is during the course
of the search of the
child the
grandfather and
others contacted
the appellant's
brother, Hari
Singh. and on
request made by
the said persons the
appellant was
produced before
the investigating
agency by said
Hari Singh and the
said disclosure
statement was
made in their
presence.
Therefore, presence
of PWs. 4 and 10 at
the time of
disclosure
statement cannot be
doubted as also
their evidence in
 this regard merely
because PWs. 4
and 10 are relatives
of the kidnapped
child in the absence
of any other
material to suspect
the same.” ( Para 4)

05 Nazir Khan & (2003) 8 Plane S.364A, Original Convict “ In the case at
Ors. v. State of SCC 461 hijack 121A, ly 9 ions hand, the entire
Delhi and 122, accused upheld. planning for
conspirac tried in Death commission of
124A
y to sessions sentenc offence punishable
kidnap r/w S. by e under Section
foreigners 120B designat commut 364A was
kept as IPC ed ed to masterminded and
hostages, TADA life for executed by Umar
for S. 3,4 Court. the Sheikh who has
getting TADA Two three. managed presently
release of were And life to go out of net of
10 hard acquitte sentenc law. In his case,
core S. 14 d. One e for the death sentence may
terrorists Foreign of them rest of have been
who were ers Act, was three appropriate. But in
the 1946 allowed was case of the co-
members to leave upheld. conspirators (the
of HUA. the present-six accused
country appellants) similar
in approach is not
exchang warranted on the
e of peculiar facts
passeng found/established.
ers of No distinctive
hijacked feature has been
plane. indicated, to
Rest of impose two
them different sentences
faced i.e. death sentence
trial. for three and life
Nazir sentence for three
Khan, others, There is no
Abdul appeal by the
Rahim prosecution to
and enhance the
Naser sentence in those
Mohmo cases where life
od sentence has been
Sodoze imposed. It would
 y, all be therefore
Pakistan appropriate to
i impose life
national sentence on all the
s, were six accused
convicte appellants.” (Para
d and 49)
sentenc
ed to
death
under
364A
and
120B,
121A,
122,
124.
Other
three
were
awarded
sentenc
e. All
under
364,
364A
and
120B
for life.
And
Death
under
TADA.

06 Malleshi v. State (2004) 8 A teen S. 362, Convict Confirm Dismiss “ To attract the
of Karnataka SCC 95 boy was 363, ed A-1 ed the ed the provisions of
kidnappe 364A, (appellaconvicti appeal Section 364A what
d by four 365 IPC nt) and on and and is required to be
accused awarded the upheld proved is (1) that
persons LI . sentenc the the accused
and a e. lower kidnapped or
demand Acquitt Dismiss courts abducted the
for ed the ed the decision person; and (2)
ransom rest appeal. s. kept him under
was made three. detention after such
thereafter kidnapping and
abduction; and (3)
that the kidnapping
or abduction was
 for ransom.” (Para
12)
“ It cannot be laid
down as a strait-
jacket formula that
the demand for
payments has to be
made to a person
who ultimately
pays.” (Para 15)

07 Mukhtiar Ahmed (2005) 5 Appellant S.364A, [Design Convict

Ansari v. State SCC 258 was 365,387 ated ion and
(NCT of Delhi) found in 120B Court] sentenc
possessio Convict e under
IPC
n of many ed and both the
firearms awarded charges
and this S. 5 the of
case was TADA punish TADA
connected ment as & Arms
with S. 25 follows- Act is
another Arms set aside
case of Act Arms and
kidnappin Act- 3 appeal
g seeking years RI is
ransom. + 50k allowed.
fine
A man
was TADA-
kidnappe 10 years
d and RI + 5
ransom Lakh
was fine
sought.
[Metro
politian
Magistr
ate]

Acquitt
ed
appellan
t and
three
others
for
charges
of
kidnapp
ing.
08 Anil v. (2006) 13 A young S. 364, Convict Upheld No “ The ingredients
Administration of SCC 36 boy of 5 302, ed u/s the convicti for commission of
Daman and Diu, y/o was 201 IPC 364A, decision on u/s offence under
Daman and Anr. kidnappe 201 IPC of TC 364A & Section 364 and
d and upheld 364A are different.
murdered the Whereas the
by the convicti intention to kidnap
appellant on u/s in order that he
and two 364 may be murdered
others or may be so
who later disposed of as to be
committe put in danger as
d suicide. murder satisfies the
requirements of
Section 364 of the
Indian Penal Code,
for obtaining a
conviction for
commission of an
offence under
Section 364A
thereof it is
necessary to prove
that not only such
kidnapping or
abetment has taken
place but thereafter
the accused
threatened to cause
death or hurt to
such person or by
his conduct gives
rise to a reasonable
apprehension that
such person may be
put to death or hurt
or causes hurt or
death to such
person in order to
compel the
government or any
foreign State or
international
intergovernmental
organization or any
other person to do
or abstain from
doing any act or to
pay a ransom. It
 was, thus,
obligatory on the
part of the learned
Sessions Judge,
Daman to frame a
charge which
would answer the
description of the
offence envisaged
under Section
364A of the Indian
Penal Code. It may
be true that the
kidnapping was
done with a view to
get ransom but the
same should have
been put to the
appellant while
framing a charge.
The prejudice to
the appellant is
apparent as the
ingredients of a
higher offence had
not been put to him
while framing any
charge.” (Para 23)

09 Daya Singh (2007) 5 Appellant S. 353, Wife Affirme Upheld “ o far as the other
Lahoriya v. State SCC 366 alongwith 420, was d order the contention is
of Rajasthan his wife 468, acquitte of convicti concerned, we have
purchased d and acquitta on u/s dismissed the
471,
several appellan l against 364A appeal filed by the
vehicles 472, t was the wife and appellant against
by 473, convicte and Explosi his conviction for
fabricatin 474 d for S. appeal ves an offence
g read 420, against Substan punishable under
certificate with 468, the ces Act. Section 364A IPC
s to carry Section 471 IPC appellan wherein the
out and S. 4 t was appellant-accused
120B
kidnappin Explosi dismiss has been ordered to
g of a IPC & ve ed. undergo
boy/man Sections Substan imprisonment for
to exert 4 and 5 ces Act. life. No useful
pressure of the purpose, therefore,
of GOI to Explosi will be served by
release ve entering into the
Devendra merits of the matter
Substan
 Singh ces Act, as the maximum
Bhullar. 1908, punishment
Appellant Sections awarded by the
was also trial Court and
7 and
allegedly confirmed by the
to be 25 of High Court in the
found in Arms present appeal was
possessio Act, of seven years for
n of arms. 1959 the offences said to
and have been
Section committed by the
appellant and the
18 of
appellant had
TADA already undergone
the said sentence.
The counsel
appearing for the
appellant in the
High Court appears
to have kept in
view the above
position and did
not press the
appeal.” (Para 15)

10. Suman Sood @ (2007) 5 Appellant S. 365 Convict Negativ Order of “ In the present
Kamal Jeet Kaur SCC 634 alongwith r/w ed u/s S. ed the convicti case, there is no
v. State of her 120B, 365 r/w appeal on us evidence at all
husband 343 r/w 120B, against 364A is direct or indirect to
Rajasthan
purchased 120B 343 r/w order of set aside connect Suman
several and 346 120B convicti and Sood with
vehicles r/w and 346 on and upheld kidnapping of
by 120B, r/w convicte convicti Rajendra Mirdha
fabricatin S.364A 120B d on for ransom.
g r/w IPC and appellan under Admittedly, she
certificate 120B acquitte t u/s rest of was not a member
s to carry IPC d u/s 364A / the of the party in the
out S.364A w 120B charges. Maruti car in which
kidnappin r/w and Rajendra Mirdha
g of a 120B. awarded was kidnapped. It
boy/man LI is not even an
to exert allegation of the
pressure prosecution that
of GOI to Suman Sood had at
release any occasion made
Devendra demand for release
Singh of Bhullar or she
Bhullar. was present when
such telephone
calls were made to
family members of
Rajendra Mirdha
(Udai Rani Mirdha,
wife of Rajendra
Mirdha or Shri
Ram Niwas
Mirdha, father of
Rajendra Mirdha).
There is nothing to
show that Suman
Sood was a
member of
Khalistan
Liberation Force
(KLF). There is
also no evidence to
show that Suman
Sood was even
knowing Bhullar or
was interested in
his release. PW 9
Rajendra Mirdha
admittedly
remained in House
No. B-117, Model
Town where
Suman Sood was
present for about
eight-nine days
from February 17,
1995 to February
25, 1995. Rajendra
Mirdha nowhere
stated in his
deposition that
during the entire
period, Suman
Sood had told him
that he was
kidnapped and kept
there so that one of
the members of
Khalistan
Liberation Force
(KLF) should be
released. We have
upheld her
conviction for
 offences
punishable under
Sections 365/120B,
343/120B and
346/120B, IPC
keeping in view the
fact that Rejendra
Mirdha was
kidnapped by Daya
Singh and was kept
at a secret place
(House No. B-117)
and Suman Sood
was staying in the
house and was
aware that
Rajendra Mirdha
was kidnapped by
her husband and
was kept at secret
place. But there is
no iota of evidence
to connect Suman
Sood with ransom
and the alleged
demand of accused
Daya Singh for
release of Bhullar.”
(Para 63)

11. Shyam Babu & (2008) 15 Five men S. Convict Dismiss Dismiss “ When kidnapping
Ors. v. State of SCC 418 kidnappe 364A, ed. ed the ed the is done with the
Haryana d a 4 y/o 325, appeal appeal threat to cause
boy when and and death or hurt to the
323,
he was affirme confirm kidnapped person
coming 384, d the ed or gives a
back 342 and TC decision reasonable
home 506 IPC decision of TC. apprehension that
from r/w . some person may
school Section be done to death or
alongwith 120B hurt or compels
his any Government,
mother. any foreign State
Mother or international
was inter-governmental
beaten organization or
and tied any person to pay
inside a a ransom, the
room and offence under
 accused Section 364A is
persons complete.
sought
ransom of If the ransom note
5 lakh. brings out threat to
the life of the child
in case ransom
money is not paid
than offence under
Section 364A is
made out.”

12 P. Liaquat Ali (2009) 12 Appellant S. 364A Convict Confirm Dismiss “ Section 364A
Khan v. State of SCC 707 kidnappe IPC ed and ed the ed the deals with separate
A.P. d a 3 y/o awarded sentenc appeal type of offence
girl child LI. e and and where ransom is a
from the dismiss upheld distinguishing
classroom ed the the feature. The
in a appeal. convicti demand of ransom
school on on and has been clearly
the sentenc established and the
account e. role played by the
of accused has been
administe analysed by the
ring her trial Court and the
medicine High Court. We
and later find no infirmity in
sent a the present appeal
note to warrant
demandin interference which
g ransom. is accordingly
dismissed.” (Para
8)

13 Lohit Kaushal v. (2009) 17 Appellant S. Acquitt Confirm Set “... It needs to be

State of Haryana SCC 106 kidnappe 364A, ed three ed the aside kept in mind that in
d along 342 r/w of the convicti the a case of
with other 120B seven on and convicti kidnapping for
persons, a IPC accused the on and ransom there are
young persons sentenc acquitte two very clear
girl child for lack e while d the schools of thought;
for of dismissi appellan one that the law
ransom evidenc ng the t. enforcement
e and appeal. agencies should be
other informed as soon
four [Except as possible so that
were the the victim can be
convicte appellan recovered without
d. t, the loss of time and the
other second, and an
three equally meritorious
abscond one, given that that
ed while the police
being investigations are
on bail] often tardy and
clumsy, that the
police should not
be informed as the
victim would then
be gravely
endangered and
that the best option
was to pay up and
recover the victim.
It hardly needs
mention that the
second option is
the more preferred
one in India.
Assuming,
therefore, that the
Appellant, as a
close relative, had
advised Arshdeep's
family to adopt the
second course,
cannot by itself be
a circumstance to
be taken against
him. It has also
come in evidence,
(and so argued by
the learned Counsel
for the State) that
the Appellant had
absconded after the
police had arrived.
We, however, find
that in the
backdrop of all the
other
circumstances, this
factor may raise
some suspicion but
cannot by itself
constitute sufficient
evidence for
conviction. We,
 thus allow, the
appeal, set aside
the conviction and
sentence of the
Appellant and
order his acquittal.
He shall be
released forth with
if in custody and is
not wanted in any
other case.” (Para
17)

14. Vikram Singh & (2010) 3 A young S. 302, Convict Confirm Death “ ...A plain reading
Ors. v. State of SCC 56 boy 16 364A, ed ed the of one of the Objects and
Punjab y/o was 201 and accused death of the Reasons which led
kidnappe persons sentenc accused to the amendment
120B
d from and e and (namely shows the concern
outside IPC awarded dismiss Sonia) of Parliament in
the school death to ed the was dealing with
and later each appeal. overturn kidnapping for
killed by one of ed to LI, ransom a crime
the the howeve which called for a
appellant persons r death deterrent
and after and held was punishment, even
few days it to be affirme in a case where the
a call for ‘rarest d of the kidnapping had not
ransom of rare’ appellan resulted in the
was made t and death of the victim.
to the the The statistics
deceased others. further reveal that
child’s kidnapping for
father. ransom has become
a lucrative and
thriving industry all
over the country
which must be
dealt with, in the
harshest possible
manner and an
obligation rests on
Courts as well.
Courts to lend a
helping hand in
that direction. In
the case before us,
we find that not
only was Abhi
Verma kidnapped
 for ransom which
acts would by itself
attract the death
penalty but he was
murdered in the
process. It is
relevant that even
before the aforesaid
amendments, this
Court in Henry's
case (supra)
observed that death
sentence could be
awarded even in a
case of kidnapping
and murder based
on circumstantial
evidence…” (Para
26)

15. Mulla & Anrs. v. (2010) 3 5 S. 365, Convict Confirm Commu “ It is true that
State of U.P. SCC 508 villagers 302 r/w ed and ed death ted either in the
(4 men 149 and awarded and Death complaint or in the
and one 148 IPC death. dismiss into LI first information
woman) ed the report, no one was
was appeal specifically named
abducted for the commission
by eight of offence. In other
armed words, the accused
accused persons are not
persons named in the FIR
who were and it merely
accompan mentions
ied by a `unknown persons'.
boy and Though a
two girls suggestion was
on made to
refusal/in prosecution
ability to witnesses that the
pay the accused persons are
asked from the nearby
money. villages, the same
The dead was stoutly denied
bodies of and in such
the circumstance,
abducted miscreants being
persons outsiders, it would
was later not be possible to
found. name those persons
 in the complaint
Four out itself without
of the further verification.
eight On the other hand,
were the prosecution
chargeshe through their
eted witnesses
particularly, PWs 1
to 4, established
that it was the
appellants, who
along with few
more persons
committed the
offence by killing
five persons
mercilessly for
non-payment of
ransom amount
which they
demanded for the
release of five
persons caught
hold by them. In
view of the same,
though none was
named in the FIR,
subsequently, the
name of the
appellants came
into light during
investigation.”
(Para 8)

“ Now, let us
consider the
arguments of the
learned amicus
curiae on the delay
in conducting the
test identification
parade. The
evidence of test
identification is
admissible under
Section 9 of the
Indian Evidence
Act. The
Identification
parade belongs to
the stage of
investigation by the
police. The
question whether a
witness has or has
not identified the
accused during the
investigation is not
one which is in
itself relevant at the
trial. The actual
evidence regarding
identification is
that which is given
by witnesses in
Court. There is no
provision in the Cr.
P.C. entitling the
accused to demand
that an
identification
parade should be
held at or before
the inquiry of the
trial. The fact that a
particular witness
has been able to
identify the
accused at an
identification
parade is only a
circumstance
corroborative of the
identification in
Court.

Failure to hold test

identification
parade does not
make the evidence
of identification in
court inadmissible,
rather the same is
very much
admissible in law.
Where
identification of an
accused by a
witness is made for
the first time in
Court, it should not
form the basis of
conviction. (Para
20 - 21)

“ Therefore, the
following
principles
regarding
identification
parade emerge: (1)
an identification
parade ideally must
be conducted as
soon as possible to
avoid any mistake
on the part of
witnesses; (2) this
condition can be
revoked if proper
explanation
justifying the delay
is provided; and,
(3) the authorities
must make sure
that the delay does
not result in
exposure of the
accused which may
lead to mistakes on
the part of the
witnesses.” (Para
32)

“ Another factor
which
unfortunately has
been left out in
much judicial
decision-making in
sentencing is the
socio-economic
factors leading to
crime. We at no
stage suggest that
economic depravity
justify moral
depravity, but we
certainly recognize
that in the real
world, such factors
may lead a person
to crime. The 48th
report of the Law
Commission also
reflected this
concern. Therefore,
we believe, socio-
economic factors
might not dilute
guilt, but they may
amount to
mitigating
circumstances.
Socio- economic
factors lead us to
another related
mitigating factor,
i.e. the ability of
the guilty to
reform. It may not
be misplaced to
note that a criminal
who commits
crimes due to his
economic
backwardness is
most likely to
reform. This Court
on many previous
occasions has held
that this ability to
reform amount to a
 mitigating factor in
cases of death
penalty.” (Para 54)

“ In the present
case, the convicts
belong to an
extremely poor
background. With
lack of knowledge
on the background
of the appellants,
we may not be
certain as to their
past, but one thing
which is clear to us
is that they have
committed these
heinous crimes for
want of money.
Though we are
shocked by their
deeds, we find no
reason why they
cannot be reformed
over a period of
time.” (Para 55)

16. Vikas Chaudhary (2010) 8 Young S. Murder Dismiss Dismiss “ If Section 364A
v. State of NCT SCC 508 17-20 y/o 364A/3 and ed the ed SLP I.P.C. and Section
Delhi & Anrs. boy was 02/201/ abducti Revisio and 472 Cr.P.C. are to
kidnappe on is a n upheld be read together, it
120B,
d and continui Petition the has to be held that
murdered r/w S. ng and order of even after the death
on the 34 I.P.C offence affimed HC of the victim every
same day and the time a ransom call
and hence, Session’ was made a fresh
ransom last s Court period of limitation
was ransom ordeer commenced.
sought by call Accordingly, it
the made is would be the date
accused the date on which the last
thereafter. to count ransom call was
the age made, i.e.,
th
and 11 March, 2003,
hence, which has to be
 appellan taken to be the date
t is not a of commission of
juvenill the offence and,
e and accordingly, the
hence, Juvenile Justice
case to Act was no longer
be tried applicable to the
in a Petitioner, who had
sessions attained the age of
court 18 years by then.”
(Para 21)

17. Akram Khan v. (2012) 1 A minor One Acquitt Upheld

State of W.B. SCC 406 boy was S.364 accused ed three the
kidnappe A/12 was out of 7 decision
d for Br/ acquitte accused of TC &
ransom 34 d and persons HC
by the IPC rest and
accused received upheld
persons. the the
followin convicti
g on of
punish the
ment: appellan
t and
S. 364A rest two
- LI, in accused
default, persons’
1 yr RI as
+ 5000 awarded
fine by TC.

S.
120B-
LI, in
default,
1 yr RI
+ 3000
fine.

18. Md. Faizan (2013) 2 Four S. 364A Convict Confirm Acquitt “ … Criminal
Ahmad @ Kalu v. SCC 138 young r/w 149 ed (A1, ed the ed the courts recognize
State of Bihar children and A2, A3) convicti appellan only legally
aged 5, 5, and on and t and admissible
120B
and 3 awarded sentenc allowed evidence and not
years ( A1, RLI and e and the farfetched
kidnappe A2, A3) on dismiss appeal. conjectures and
d and default, ed the surmises. … The
ransom S. 368 1 yr SI appeal High Court was
 was r/w 149 carried away by the
sought and & heinous nature of
thereafter. 120B the crime and, in
Convict that, it lost sight of
IPC
ed (A4, the basic principle
( A4, A5, A6) underlying criminal
A5, A6) and jurisprudence that
awarded suspicion, however
RLI and grave, cannot take
on the place of proof.
default, If a criminal court
1 yr SI allows its mind to
be swayed by the
gravity of the
offence and
proceeds to hand
out punishment on
that basis, in the
absence of any
credible evidence,
it would be doing
great violence to
the basic tenets of
criminal
jurisprudence. We
hope and trust that
this is just an
aberration.” (Para
11)

19. Vikram Singh & MANU/S A young S. 302, Convict Confirm Dismiss “ Given the
Ors v. Union of C/0901/20 boy 16 364A ed and ed the ed the background in
India [Case earlier 15 y/o was IPC awarded convicti appeal which the law was
mentioned] kidnappe death on and enacted and the
d from sentenc the concern shown by
● This was outside e sentenc the Parliament for
in the school e. the safety and
reference and later security of the
to the WP killed by citizens and the
filed by the unity, sovereignty
appellant appellant and integrity of the
challengin and after country, the
g few days punishment
constitutio a call for prescribed for those
nality of ransom committing any act
S364A was made contrary to Section
to the 364A cannot be
deceased dubbed as so
child’s outrageously
father. disproportionate to
the nature of the
offence as to call
for the same being
declared
unconstitutional.
Judicial discretion
available to the
Courts to choose
one of the two
sentences
prescribed for those
falling foul of
Section 364A will
doubtless be
exercised by the
Courts along
judicially
recognized lines
and death sentences
awarded only in the
rarest of rare cases.
But just because
the sentence of
death is a possible
punishment that
may be awarded in
appropriate cases
cannot make it per
se inhuman or
barbaric. In the
ordinary course and
in cases which
qualify to be called
rarest of the rare,
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. Fact
situations where
the act which the
accused is charged
with is proved to be
an act of terrorism
threatening the
very essence of our
federal, secular and
democratic
structure may
possibly be the
only other
situations where
Courts may
consider awarding
the extreme
penalty. But, short
of death in such
extreme and rarest
of rare cases,
imprisonment for
life for a proved
case of kidnapping
or abduction will
not qualify for
being described as
barbaric or
inhuman so as to
infringe the right to
life guaranteed
Under Article 21 of
the Constitution.
51. It was argued
that in certain
situations even
imprisonment for
life may be
disproportionate to
the gravity of the
offence committed
by the accused.
Hypothetical
situations are
pressed into service
to bring home the
force of the
contention. The
question, however,
is whether the
Court can merely
on a hypothetical
 situation strike
down a provision
disregarding the
actual facts in
which the
challenge has been
mounted. Our
answer is in the
negative. Assumed
hypothetical
situations cannot,
in our opinion, be
brought to bear
upon the vires of
Section 364A...”
(Para 50-51)

20. Sunder @ (2013) 3 A 7 y/o S. 302, Convict Confirm Confirm “ 72. The above
Sundararajan v. SCC 2015 boy was 201, ed and ed the ed the judgments provide
State by Inspector kidnappe 364A awarded sentenc death us with the dicta of
d and IPC death e and sentenc the Court relating
of Police
murdered penalty. the e and to imposition of
while he convicti dismiss death penalty.
was on. ed the Merely because a
coming appeal crime is heinous
home per se may not be a
from his sufficient reason
school for the imposition
and of death penalty
ransom without reference
was to the other factors
sought for and attendant
his safe circumstances.
release by
appellant Most of the
and other heinous crimes
men. under the Indian
Penal Code are
punishable by
death penalty or
life imprisonment.
That by itself does
not suggest that in
all such offences,
penalty of death
alone should be
awarded. We must
notice, even at the
cost of repetition,
that in such cases
awarding of life
imprisonment
would be a rule,
while 'death' would
be the exception.
The term 'rarest of
rare' case which is
the consistent
determinative rule
declared by this
Court, itself
suggests that it has
to be an
exceptional case.

The life of a
particular
individual cannot
be taken away
except according to
the procedure
established by law
and that is the
constitutional
mandate. The law
contemplates
recording of special
reasons and,
therefore, the
expression 'special'
has to be given a
definite meaning
and connotation.
'Special reasons' in
contra-distinction
to 'reasons'
simpliciter conveys
the legislative
mandate of putting
a restriction on
exercise of judicial
discretion by
placing the
requirement of
special reasons. “
(Para 72 - 74)
21. State of MANU/S A young S. 363, Convict Acquitt Set
Maharashtra v. C/0906/20 boy was 364A, ed the ed the aside
Lahu @ 13 kidnappe 386, accused. accused the
d and order of
Lahukumar 302 and
murdered acquitta
Ramchandra from the 201 IPC l by HC
Dhekhane school for and
ransom restored
and later the TC
destroyed order of
the convicti
evidence. on

22. Vijay Kumar v. 2008 sc A boy S. 302 Convict Confirm Confirm

State (GNCT) of OnLine was r/w 34, ed and ed the s the
Delhi Del 254 kidnappe 386 r/w awarded sentenc sentenc
d and 511 and LI e e and
murdered 34, awarded dismiss
for 364A by TC ed the
ransom. appeal.

23. Suresh v. State of MANU/S A young Convict Sentenc Confirm

Haryana C/1091/20 boy S. ed and e ed the
14 alongwith 302/3 awarded confirm Sentenc
his father 4, LI ed. e and
were 201, dismiss
kidnappe 364A ed the
d and appeal
r/w
murdered
while 120B
coming IPC
back from
their
factory
and
appellants
sought
ransom
for their
release.

24. Vijay Ranglal (2014) 12 The S, Accuse Convict Appeal

Chorasiya v. State SCC 400 victim 364A, d A2 , ion of by A2,
of Gujarat was 120B A3, A4, the A5
overtaken IPC A5, accused dismiss
, A11 persons ed.
abducted were A2, A5, Appeal
by the convicte A11 by A6
appellant d under was allowed.
and S 364A upheld.
 ransom read Acquitt
was with S al
sought by 120B appeal
his father IPC & of A7-A
thereafter. sentenc 10 was
ed to dismiss
impriso ed.
nment Acquitt
for life. al of A6
A7, A8, was
A9 & reversed
A10 ;
were convicte
acquitte d for
d. A6 life
was impriso
tried nment
separate
ly, and
acquitte
d

25. Motilal Yadav v. (2015) 2 A 6 y/o S. 364A All 7 Confirm Affirme “ The evidence as
State of Bihar SCC 647 girl was r/w 341 accused ed the d the to the identity of a
kidnappe & 120B were convicti convicti person is
d while r/w 64A convicte on of on and admissible Under
she was d. appellan sentenc Section 9 of the
going t. e. Indian Evidence
school Act, 1872. In the
with her case of Ravi
sister in a Kumar v. State of
rickshaw Rajasthan
and MANU/SC/0659/2
accused 012 : (2012) 9 SCC
later 284, this Court has
demande opined in
d ransom paragraph 35 as
for her follows:
safe
release. ...The court
identification
itself is a good
identification
in the eye of
the law. It is
not always
necessary that
it must be
 preceded by
the test
identification
parade. It will
always depend
upon the facts
and
circumstances
of a given case.
In one case, it
may not even
be necessary to
hold the test
identification
parade while in
the other, it
may be
essential to do
so. Thus, no
straitjacket
formula can be
stated in this
regard.

12. In the case of

R. Shaji v. State of
Kerala
MANU/SC/0087/2
013 : (2013) 14
SCC 266,
regarding the
evidential value of
the test
identification
parade, this Court
has stated in
paragraph 58 as
under:

...The
identification
parade is
conducted by
 the police. The
actual evidence
regarding
identification is
that which is
given by the
witness in
court. A test
identification
parade cannot
be claimed by
an accused as a
matter of right.
Mere
identification
of an accused
in a test
identification
parade is only
a circumstance
corroborative
of the
identification
of the accused
in court....

13. In Ashok
Debbarma alias
Achak Debbarma
v. State of Tripura
MANU/SC/0168/2
014 : (2014) 4 SCC
747, this Court has
made following
observations in
para 20 which are
reproduced below:

...The primary
object of the
test
identification
parade is to
 enable the
witnesses to
identify the
persons
involved in the
commission of
offence(s) if
the offenders
are not
personally
known to the
witnesses. The
whole object
behind the test
identification
parade is really
to find whether
or not the
suspect is the
real offender.
In Kanta
Prasad v.
Delhi Admn.
MANU/SC/00
43/1958 : AIR
1958 SC 350,
this Court
stated that the
failure to hold
the test
identification
parade does not
make the
evidence of
identification
at the trial
inadmissible…
” ( Para 11 -
13)

26. Vinod Kumar v. (2015) 3 A 3.5 y/o S.363/1 Acquitt Reverse Appeal “ It is well settled
State of Haryana SCC 138 boy was 09/364 ed the d the Dismiss in law that minor
kidnappe A IPC Appella order of ed and discrepancies on
d for nt & the TC and HC trivial matters not
ransom co- Convict decision touching the core
by the accused. ed the affirme of the case or not
house appellan d. going to the root of
help t. the matter could
(Accused not result in
- rejection of the
Appellant evidence as a
) whole. It is also
well accepted
principle that no
true witness can
possibly escape
from making some
discrepant details,
but the Court
should bear in
mind that it is only
when discrepancies
in the evidence of a
witness are so
incompatible with
the credibility of
his version that it
would be justified
in jettisoning his
evidence. It is
expected of the
Courts to ignore
the discrepancies
which do not shed
the basic version of
the prosecution, for
the Court has to
call into aid its vast
experience of men
and matters in
different cases to
evaluate the entire
material on
record. ..” (Para 19)