Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 364A—Kidnapping for ransom—Proof—Contradictions in statements of victim—Three crucial changes are noticed: first, a change in the exact timing of threat; second, the specificity of delivery of threat to kill; and third, omission of intent behind the threat i.e. to prevent victim from crying out—These details are crucial to proving the second ingredient of charge under HYPERLINK "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1374258/" Section 364A and essential to bring home the guilt under this section namely, threat resulting in giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt—This ingredient has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt—Courts below did not thoroughly address such doubt before convicting the appellants—For proving ingredient of threat, the intimidation of child victim, for purpose of making him silent, cannot be enough—Conviction of appellant under Section 364A of IPC—Unsustainable—Apex Court has wide power to alter charge under Section 216 of CrPC whilst not causing prejudice to the accused—Impugned judgments of Trial Court and High Court are modified to extent that appellants are convicted now for offence under Section 363 of IPC i.e. kidnapping—Appeals allowed in part.
[Paras 15 to 18]