[IPC] SC expounds: For proving the ingredient of threat under Section 364A, the intimidation of child victim for making him silent is not enough

 

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Apex court in the case of Ravi Dhingra Vs The State of Haryana opined that for proving a threat under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), intimidation of the child victim for making him silent is not enough. 

It was noted that in the present case, there were changes in the statements of the Prosecution witness. First, a change in the exact timing of the threat. Second, the specificity of the delivery of the threat to kill; and Third, omission of the intent behind the threat i.e. to prevent the child from crying out. It was ruled that the ingredient of proving a threat to cause death or hurt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Brief Facts:

An FIR was registered under Section 364/34 of the IPC as the Accused kidnapped a 14-year-old boy while he was going to school. Later on, calls were made to the parents of the boy demanding ransom. Upon receiving the ransom, the child was released and dropped. 

The Appellants were tried for the commission of offences under Sections 364, 364A, 342, and 506 read with Section 148 of the IPC by the Trial Court and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 

Aggrieved by this, the Appellants approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, the High Court rejected the plea. Hence, the present appeals. 

Contentions of the Appellant:

It was contended that the ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC have not been proved in this case. It was submitted that no threat of causing death or hurt was proven. Hence, modification of the sentence was prayed. 

Observations by the Court:

The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Section 364A includes the instance of coercive violence or substantial threat to make a demand for ransom. The three essential stages of Section 364A were opined: 

1. Kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention
2. Threat to cause death or hurt and the use of kidnapping with a demand to pay the ransom 
3. If demand is not met, then death. 

It was noted that in the present case, there were changes in the statements of the Prosecution witness. First, a change in the exact timing of the threat; Second, the specificity of the delivery of the threat to kill; and Third, omission of the intent behind the threat i.e. to prevent the child from crying out. It was ruled that the ingredient of proving a threat to cause death or hurt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

It was opined that for proving a threat, intimidation of the child victim for making him silent is not enough. 

Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court held that the conviction under Section 364A of the IPC was unsustainable. 

The decision of the Court:

 

With the above direction, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 364A of the IPC and convicted the Appellants for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed partly. 

Case Title: Ravi Dhingra Vs The State of Haryana

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna

 Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 987 OF 2009

Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 158 SC

Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Sri Gaurav Agrawal 

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Sri Rakesh Mudgal 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free. 

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant. 

Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language) 

 

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our

journalism free from government and corporate pressure .