Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.00 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Anil @ Raju Namdev Patil vs Administration Of Daman & Diu, Daman & ... on 24 November, 2006
24. The next judgment is Anil alias Raju Namdev Patil
Vs. Administration of Daman & Diu, Daman and Another,
(2006) 13 SCC 36. In the above case, this Court
noticed the ingredients for commission of offence
under Section 364 and 364A. Following was laid down
in paragraph 55:-
Vishwanath Gupta vs State Of Uttaranchal on 21 March, 2007
“8. According to Section 364-A, whoever
kidnaps or abducts any person and keeps
him in detention and threatens to cause
death or hurt to such person and by his
conduct gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put
to death or hurt, and claims a ransom and
if death is caused then in that case the
accused can be punished with death or
imprisonment for life and also liable to
pay fine.
Vikram Singh @ Vicky & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2015
30. Next case which needs to be noticed is a Three
Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Vikram Singh
alias Vicky and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.,
(2015) 9 SCC 502. In the above case, this Court
elaborately considered the scope and purport of
Section 364A including the historical background.
After noticing the earlier cases, this Court laid
29
down that section 364A has three distinct components.
In Paragraph 25, following was laid down with regard
to distinct components of Section 364A:-
Arvind Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 April, 2020
31. We may also notice one more Three Judge Bench
Judgment of this Court in Arvind Singh Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2020) SCC Online SC 400. In the above
case, an eight year old son of Doctor Mukesh Ramanlal
Chandak (PW1) was kidnapped by the accused A1 and A2.
Accused A1 was an employee of Dr. Chandak. It was
held that A1 had grievance against Dr. Chandak. A2
who accompanied A1 when the boy was kidnapped and
after the kidnapping of the boy it was found that boy
was murdered and at the instance of A1, the dead body
30
was recovered from a bridge constructed over a
Rivulet. Trial court had sentenced both A1 and A2 to
death for the offences punishable under Sections 364A
read with 34 and 302 read with 34. The High Court
had dismissed the appeal affirming the death
sentence. On behalf of A2, one of the arguments
raised before this Court was that although child was
kidnapped for ransom but there was no intention to
take the life of the child, therefore, offence under
Section 364A is not made out. This Court noticed the
ingredients of Section 364A, one of which was
“threatening to cause death or hurt” in paragraphs
90, 91 and 92, the following was observed:-