Court, notably in Anil v. Administration of Daman & Diu, (2006) 13 SCC 36; Vishwanath Gupta v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 11 SCC 633 and Vikram Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 9 SCC 502, has clarified essential ingredients to order a conviction for commission of an offence under Section 364A.

Most recently, Court in Sk. Ahmed v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 59 clarified, Malleshi v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 8 SCC 95 was merely concerned with ransom and its ratio would be of no assistance to cases where fulfilment of other ingredients of Section 364A is brought into question.

We set aside conviction under Section 364A.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana, [Criminal Appeal No. 987 of 2009].

_____

Section 364A also covers cases where demand of ransom made is not a part of a terrorist act but for monetary gains for a private individual. The necessary ingredients which must be proved before Court, beyond a reasonable doubt, are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter a demand of ransom. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish a demand of ransom.

– Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, [Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019] decided on 03.01.2024.