TITLE: NEERAJ SHARMA V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1420 OF 2019
DECIDED ON: 3 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Facts of the Case
Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2024, which both arose from a shared ruling by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, were the subjects of the case that was heard by the Supreme Court of India. The trial court found the appellants, Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav, guilty of kidnapping, robbing, and attempting to kill Class 12 student Arjit Sharma. The prosecution claimed that the appellants had kidnapped Arjit Sharma, tried to murder him, and stolen his possessions. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains several provisions that deal with crimes like kidnapping for ransom, and section 364A is one of the ones that the trial court found them guilty of.
Legal Provisions:
The trial court had convicted the appellants under various sections of the IPC, including section 364A, for kidnapping for ransom. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and questioned the applicability of section 364A. The Court also considered section 364 of the IPC, which deals with kidnapping or abducting to murder, as an alternative charge. Furthermore, the Court invoked Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues Involved:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was the applicability of section 364A of the IPC. The Court expressed doubts about the evidence establishing the crucial element of ransom demand, necessary for a conviction under section 364A. Additionally, the Court had to assess the overall validity of the convictions in light of the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the victim’s testimony as an injured witness.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
In its extensive ruling, the Supreme Court emphasised the value of the victim’s evidence as an injured witness in criminal cases. The Court determined that the evidence did not persuasively prove the ransom demand, a crucial condition under section 364A, even if it acknowledged the severity of the acts. Thus, the convictions under section 364A were set aside by the Court, but the convictions under other pertinent sections of the IPC were upheld. By converting the convictions from section 364A to section 364 of the IPC, the Court demonstrated its authority and emphasised the importance of strong evidence in criminal cases. The appellants received sentences of fines and ten years of hard labour for each offence. Given the seriousness of the victim’s injuries, the Court ordered the State of Chhattisgarh to provide Rs. 5, 00,000 under Section 357A compensation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment provided a meticulous analysis of the evidence, legal provisions, and its reasoning for modifying the convictions, exemplifying the judicial scrutiny applied in ensuring justice and the proper application of the law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
