Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
IIIustrations
(a) A kidnaps Z from [India], intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this
section.
Section 364, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 140 Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom, etc Close, with changes 83%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act s. 12 Amendment of section 82
- Crpc 1973 s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act s. 30
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
P. Liaquat Ali Khan vs State of A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies to kidnapping cases where ransom is demanded as a distinguishing feature, and the requirement of proof of ransom demand can be satisfied through direct and circumstantial evidence including the accused's conduct, presence at the ransom collection point, recovery of the child from the accused's house, and other corroborating evidence, even if the authorship of the ransom demand letters is established through circumstantial rather than direct evidence.
On this section: Related but distinct offences under Chapter XVI; Section 364-A represents a separate and serious category distinguishable by ransom demand
-
Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving identification evidence, when multiple independent eyewitnesses positively identify the accused in court with specific reference to identifying features (such as distinctive clothing) and distinctive acts performed during the crime, and when such in-court identification is corroborated by: (a) participation in prior test identification parade conducted within reasonable time of occurrence (24 days) where accused did not challenge procedures; (b) recovery of vehicle and weapons linked to appellant; (c) credible evidence of previous acquaintance supporting enduring impress of identity; (d) consistent medical/forensic evidence; and (e) circumstances of arrest at scene with weapons, the absence of formal cross-examination of key witness (due to unavoidable circumstances) or initial non-mention in complaint does not vitiate the trial or conviction. The purpose of investigation is to set law in motion and collect evidence; if investigative procedures are thereafter followed lawfully and evidence collected is sufficiently corroborated, conviction can be upheld despite technical defects in initiation of investigation.
On this section: Abduction in order to commit murder - interpreted to cover abduction of unconscious victim where abduction was in furtherance of ultimate murder objective
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Kidnapping; charged against Deepa Tomar; listed in Annexure A as offence affecting human body
-
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving circumstantial evidence and conspiracy, eyewitness identification without test identification parade is admissible and can support conviction if the witness is trustworthy and reliable, provided such identification is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confessions, recovered weapons, telephonic communications and documents. However, mere telephonic communications without proof of exclusive control or personal involvement in conspiatorial acts are insufficient to establish guilt when the communications are explainable by familial or legitimate relationships. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through competent and corroborating evidence.
On this section: Applied to establish liability for kidnapping of Jaswinder Kaur from the place of incident and her being taken in the motor vehicle under control of conspirators
-
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a witness is trustworthy and reliable and has opportunity to observe and recall the incident, the absence of a test identification parade does not render their in-court identification inadmissible or unsafe if it is supported by credible corroborating material evidence such as medical evidence, other eyewitness accounts, recoveries of items connected to the crime, and incriminating statements. Conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 307 read with Section 120B IPC can be sustained on the basis of such circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. However, conviction must not be based on mere suspicion or telephone communications alone without concrete corroborating evidence, as the standard of proof requires evidence to be sufficient and convincing.
On this section: Applied for kidnapping of Jaswinder Kaur. The kidnapping was forcible taking away with intent to cause death.
-
Sukhjit Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court fails to put incriminating material and the core elements of the charge (such as abduction in a kidnapping case) to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, and when the prosecution evidence merely establishes peripheral facts (such as marital status) without substantiating the primary charge, the conviction is vitiated by procedural infirmity. The right to a fair trial, including the opportunity to explain specific circumstances appearing against the accused, is fundamental to the justice system. The absence of evidence establishing the core charge, combined with procedural violation, mandates acquittal.
On this section: Defines kidnapping; the court examined whether the elements of this offense (unlawful compulsion, carrying away, etc.) were established. The court found that while marriage was proven, the element of abduction was never established.
-
Rakesh vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate does not become functus officio (completely devoid of power) merely by accepting a police final report under Section 173 CrPC. The Magistrate retains the independent power to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint or protest petition filed by the first informant or complainant, even after accepting a negative final report, provided the Magistrate independently applies his mind to the facts and circumstances and follows the appropriate legal procedure under Sections 190, 200, and 202 CrPC. The mere acceptance of a final report does not foreclose or bar the exercise of this power.
On this section: Section 364 IPC was the basis of the original FIR for alleged kidnapping; this being the substantive offence alleged against the accused
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a charge-sheet is filed after completion of investigation by the investigating agency in the competent court, the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring the investigating agency's proper performance comes to an end. Thereafter, all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be dealt with exclusively by the competent trial court. The Supreme Court shall not continue to monitor the trial phase, as the Constitution envisages an independent and impartial tribunal (the trial court) for dispute resolution, and judicial monitoring of the trial would constitute an improper interference with the trial court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The remedy for any error committed by the trial court lies in appeal or judicial review, not in continued Supreme Court intervention.
On this section: Kidnapping or abduction
-
Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is convicted of heinous crimes in a case involving defective investigation, absence of Test Identification Parade, and delayed witness statements, even if conviction is upheld based on oral testimony, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment applying the principle of prudence established in Swamy Shraddananda and Santosh Kumar Bariyar, unless the circumstances of the case are so exceptional and grave that they override the investigative deficiencies. Further, mere presence in an unlawful assembly without attribution of specific role or overt act does not justify conviction or death sentence - the standard laid down in Baladin must be applied.
On this section: Kidnapping in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly; Charge applied to appellants
-
Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, absence of established motive is not fatal to conviction if the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstantial evidence that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The circumstances must form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence and showing that in all human probability the act must have been committed by the accused. When circumstances are firmly established and form such a complete chain, the conviction stands even though the prosecution may not have proved the specific motive alleged, as motive is a matter primarily within the knowledge of the accused and may often be difficult to fathom by outsiders.
On this section: Kidnapping or abduction - taken away or enticed any minor for purpose of putting in wrongful custody. Applied to conviction for taking deceased away from park.
-
Bomb Selvam @ Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the majority opinion (Justice V. Gopala Gowda) is that accomplice evidence, even if the witnesses are not formally designated as accomplices, must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence before an accused can be convicted. When the prosecution fails to provide such independent corroboration and the accused has been acquitted of the conspiracy charge, the conviction under abetment cannot be sustained. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the involvement of each accused individually in each offence charged, and mere presence at meetings or involvement in preparatory acts without direct evidence of participation in the crime is insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping; applied to convict appellants for kidnapping of M.K. Balan
-
Manickam @ Poonga Manickam vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence requires corroboration from independent sources in material particulars connecting accused with crime. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. When accomplice evidence is the sole link between accused and crime and lacks independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC precludes conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of overt act in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence can sustain conviction when corroborated by confessional statements, vehicle recoveries, and circumstantial evidence. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with different ingredients. Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abduction is proved and victim murdered soon thereafter.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - applied to appellants read with Section 109
-
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of kidnapping for ransom, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where the core facts—kidnapping of the victim, recovery of the victim in custody of the accused, and proof of ransom demand through telephone records and witness testimony—are established. Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those arising from the passage of time or the tender age of a child witness, must be ignored if the essential elements of the crime and the identity of the accused are proved through reliable and corroborating evidence. Non-recovery of a specific item (such as a SIM card) does not materially affect the proof of the act alleged to have been committed using that item when the act itself is proved through independent witness testimony and documentary records such as call details. An acquittal in related but distinct criminal charges does not operate to overturn a conviction in a separate and distinct charge arising from the same transaction if the evidence for the latter charge stands independently proved.
On this section: Kidnapping for ransom. The court examined whether the appellant kidnapped the child with intent to hold him for ransom and whether the demand for Rs. 10 lakh was established by evidence.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sohan Lal Bishnoi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to interfere with a trial court's discretionary order declining to permit video teleconference examination of a witness in a sessions trial, where the trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously, in good faith, on correct and plausible grounds, and where the witness has merely expressed partial reluctance rather than outright refusal to appear, and where the reasons for non-appearance (professional inconvenience and travel expenses) are not substantial or genuine grounds for dispensing with personal presence of witness, particularly when the trial court has already issued summons multiple times and the witness has not specifically stated inability to visit India for compelling reasons.
On this section: Abduction. Charges framed against accused-respondents for abduction of Bhanwari Devi.
-
Somasundaram @ Somu vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a divergent opinion on the reliability of accomplice evidence and the legal distinction between criminal conspiracy and abetment. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, acquittal under Section 120-B IPC is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of specific overt acts in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including eyewitness testimony, confessional statements, and recovery of articles, can sustain conviction even without formal designation as accomplice. Additionally, acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct ingredients, and the presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abductors cannot explain the fate of the abducted person.
On this section: Punishment for abduction; applied to convict appellants
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split decision with no single ratio decidendi. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and when such corroboration is absent and the accused are acquitted of conspiracy, conviction under abetment provisions cannot be sustained. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence can be relied upon when sufficiently corroborated by confessional statements and recovery of articles, and acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct legal requirements.
On this section: Defines kidnapping; applied to charge of kidnapping of deceased read with Section 109
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Singh (Accused No.1), Ram Nandan Singh (Accused No.2), Raj Nandan Singh (Accused No.3), Shyam Nandan Singh (Accused No.4), Bhagwan Singh (Accused No. 5), Vijay Singh (Accused No. 6) and Tanik Singh (Accused No.7). 2. The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused persons listed …
-
… Singh (Accused No.1), Ram Nandan Singh (Accused No.2), Raj Nandan Singh (Accused No.3), Shyam Nandan Singh (Accused No.4), Bhagwan Singh (Accused No. 5), Vijay Singh (Accused No. 6) and Tanik Singh (Accused No.7). 2. The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused persons listed …
-
… Singh (Accused No.1), Ram Nandan Singh (Accused No.2), Raj Nandan Singh (Accused No.3), Shyam Nandan Singh (Accused No.4), Bhagwan Singh (Accused No. 5), Vijay Singh (Accused No. 6) and Tanik Singh (Accused No.7). 2. The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused persons listed …
Questions about Section 364
What have the courts held on Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code?
P. Liaquat Ali Khan vs State of A. P (17 Apr 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Related but distinct offences under Chapter XVI; Section 364-A represents a separate and serious category distinguishable by ransom demand. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 364, section 364 IPC, section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 364a and ipc 364 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with P. Liaquat Ali Khan vs State of A. P (17 Apr 2009).
What should I read with Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 140 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 364, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.