The Allahabad High Court has upheld the acquittal of a woman accused of kidnapping a five-year-old child for ransom, holding that mere recovery of the victim from the accused is insufficient to constitute the offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code unless the prosecution proves the essential statutory ingredients, including a demand for ransom or coercive conduct contemplated by the provision.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Zafeer Ahmad dismissed the State Government’s appeal against the trial court’s judgment acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 364A IPC. During the pendency of the appeal, proceedings against the co-accused stood abated owing to his death, and the appeal survived only against the second respondent.
Also Read Who is a Citizen of India?
The prosecution alleged that the respondents had abducted the complainant’s five-year-old daughter with the intention of demanding ransom. The child was subsequently recovered in a sedated condition from the company of the accused, and the prosecution relied on the alleged recovery, medical evidence and an extra-judicial disclosure by the accused to establish the offence.
Examining the scope of Section 364A IPC, the Court held that the provision contains three cumulative requirements: (i) kidnapping, abduction or detention; (ii) threat of death or hurt, conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of such harm, or actual hurt; and (iii) use of such coercion to compel payment of ransom or performance of an act. The Court emphasised that these ingredients are connected by the conjunctive expression “and”, making proof of each indispensable for conviction.
The Bench found that the prosecution failed to establish one of the most essential ingredients of the offence, a demand for ransom. During cross-examination, the complainant and other key prosecution witnesses admitted that no ransom had ever been demanded, either directly or indirectly. The Court observed that no independent evidence of any communication, message or conduct suggesting a ransom demand had been produced.
The Court also noted material inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including contradictory versions regarding the date of the alleged kidnapping, the manner in which witnesses reached the place of recovery, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged disclosure by the accused. These contradictions, the Court held, went to the root of the prosecution case rather than constituting minor discrepancies.
Rejecting the State’s reliance on medical evidence showing that the child had been sedated, the Court held that while such evidence explained the victim’s physical condition, it could not substitute proof of the statutory ingredients of Section 364A IPC, particularly the requirement of ransom demand or coercive threats. The Court further observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence, and no presumption of kidnapping for ransom arises merely because the victim is a child of tender years.
Applying the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence represented a plausible view and disclosed neither perversity nor manifest illegality. Finding no compelling reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the Government appeal and affirmed the acquittal.