William Stephen vs. State of Tamil Nadu [February 21, 2024]
William Stephen and a co-accused were prosecuted for kidnapping a child and allegedly demanding a ransom of ₹5 lakhs from the child’s parents. The Trial Court convicted both under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Madras High Court upheld this conviction. The appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the essential ingredients of Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom with threat of death or hurt) were not established.
Legal Issues
What are the essential elements required to convict under Section 364A IPC?
Was there sufficient evidence of a threat to cause death or hurt to the kidnapped child, as required under Section 364A?
Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom stand in the absence of such threat?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 364A IPC requires two key ingredients: (1) kidnapping or abduction and (2) a threat to cause death or hurt to the person kidnapped, in connection with a ransom demand.
The evidence established that the child was indeed kidnapped by the accused, satisfying the first requirement under Section 361 IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship).
However, the prosecution failed to prove the second requirement: there was no cogent evidence of any threat to cause death or hurt to the child. The testimonies of the victim and parents did not establish that the accused had issued such threats.
The High Court had discarded the call detail records for lack of proper certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, further weakening the prosecution’s case regarding the alleged demand and threat.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a mere demand for ransom, without a corresponding threat of death or hurt, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 364A IPC.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 364A IPC, holding that the essential ingredients were not met.
However, the Court upheld the conviction for the lesser offence of kidnapping under Section 361, punishable under Section 363 IPC, as the act of kidnapping from lawful guardianship was proven.
The appeals were partly allowed, and the sentence under Section 364A was set aside while maintaining the sentence under Section 363 IPC.
Significance
The judgment clarifies the law on kidnapping for ransom, emphasizing the necessity of proving both the act of kidnapping and a threat to cause death or hurt for a conviction under Section 364A.
It underscores that courts must strictly interpret penal provisions and cannot presume threats merely from a ransom demand.
The case reinforces procedural safeguards, particularly regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Citation:
William Stephen vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2024, Supreme Court, Judgment dated 21.02.2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments