The Chhattisgarh High Court held that in the absence of direct threat of death or harm, a person cannot be convicted under Section 364A of the IPC.

The Court partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant modifying his conviction from Section 364A of the IPC (Kidnapping for Ransom) to Section 363 of the IPC (Kidnapping) and Section 365 IPC (Kidnapping with Intent to Confine). The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish all three essential ingredients required for conviction under Section 364A of the IPC, particularly the threat to cause death or harm.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha And Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held, “Three ingredients are requires for the offence of Section 364-A I.P.C., one is kidnapping or abduction, second is threat of death coupled with the demand of money and thirdly when the demand is not made, then causing death or hurt and if all these three ingredients are available that will constitute the offence under Section 364-A of I.P.C. and in absence of any one of the mandatory conditions the accused cannot be convicted.”

Advocate Savita Tiwari represented the Appellant, while Advocate SS Ubeja appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Appeal arose from the conviction and life sentence imposed on the Appellant by the Trial Court under Sections 363 and 364A of the IPC for allegedly kidnapping a six-year-old child and demanding a ransom of Rs. 3 lakh from his father.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that the prosecution was only able to prove the offence against the Appellant under Section 363 and 365 of the I.P.C. instead of Section 364A of the I.P.C.

“Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of any clinching evidence with respect to the demand of ransom and ransom call allegedly made to the father of the victim, the appellant cannot be convicted for kidnapping for ransom rather he can be convicted for kidnapping with intend to wrongfully confined the person which comes under the offence of Section 365 of I.P.C,” the Court remarked.

While kidnapping and ransom demand were alleged, the Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove the second condition—that the Appellant threatened to cause death or injury to the victim.

The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2021), which held that all three ingredients of Section 364A of the IPC must be satisfied for conviction. The absence of direct threats led the Court to hold that Section 364A of the IPC was not applicable in this case.

Consequently, the Court held, “The appellant is reported to be in jail since 22.06.2021. During trial he was remained in jail from 15.03.2019 to 01.09.2020. The appellant is entitled for set-off of his undergone period…With the aforesaid modification/observation the appeal is partly allowed.”

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Ishwar Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:3373-DB)

Click here to read/download the Order



Chhattisgarh High CourtChief Justice Ramesh SinhaJustice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Riya Rathore

    Assistant Editor

    Riya Rathore is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum. She completed her B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from O.P. Jindal Global University in 2018 and went on to pursue her LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law & Technology Law from the Centre for Post Graduate Legal Studies in 2019. Her research interests lie in the areas of Environmental Law, Public Policy, Criminal Justice, and Matrimonial Disputes—fields where the intersection of law and society can be explored. Her academic interests lie in the intersection of Intellectual Property Rights, Data Security, and Cyber Laws. She is also interested in Environmental Laws, Public Policy and Sustainable Development.