Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2024 INSC 6; Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Background
Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav were accused of a brutal attack on 18-year-old Arjit Sharma. The victim, lured by the accused (who were acquaintances), was taken on a motorcycle ride, where he was strangled with a clutch wire, left for dead, doused in petrol, and set on fire. Despite severe injuries, including burns and the eventual amputation of a leg, the victim survived and identified his assailants. The accused also robbed him of money and his phone. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 392, and 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the IPC. The High Court upheld the convictions. The Supreme Court was called upon to review these convictions, especially the charge under Section 364A IPC.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Section 364A IPC – Kidnapping for Ransom:
The Supreme Court clarified that for a conviction under Section 364A, the prosecution must prove not only abduction or kidnapping but also a demand for ransom coupled with a threat to life. The Court found that, while the prosecution proved abduction and attempt to murder, there was no credible evidence of a ransom demand. The victim made no mention of ransom in his initial statements; it appeared only in a supplementary police statement recorded two months later, which the Court found unreliable.
Modification of Conviction:
The Court held that the ingredients of Section 364A were not satisfied and modified the conviction to Section 364 (kidnapping or abduction in order to murder), sentencing the accused to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each. Convictions under Sections 307, 120B, 392, and 397 IPC were upheld.
Victim Compensation:
Recognizing the grave injuries and lifelong trauma suffered by the victim, the Court enhanced the compensation under Section 357A CrPC, directing the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹5,00,000 to the victim, rather than the ₹1,00,000 awarded by lower courts.
Evidentiary Value of Injured Witness:
The Court emphasized the high evidentiary value of injured witnesses in criminal trials, noting that unless compelling circumstances exist, their testimony should be given significant weight.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the essential ingredients for conviction under Section 364A IPC, reinforcing that a demand for ransom is indispensable. It also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to victim compensation and the importance of reliable, contemporaneous witness statements in criminal trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments