Kidnappin for ransom, etc
Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with kidnappin for ransom, etc. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable appreension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes h 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Kidnapping for ransom, etc.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable appreension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 364A, 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 74%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Gautam Kumar Devjibhai vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded in one criminal trial against different accused persons cannot be transferred to another trial and read against an accused who was not present during the original trial unless the transfer is effected in compliance with Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, with proper court order explicitly approving such transfer, and without violating the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses. An accused person's mere absconding does not automatically waive his right to cross-examination; such waiver must be established through proper legal procedure. Appellate courts cannot ignore trial courts' explicit rejection of applications for evidence transfer and must independently examine whether transferred evidence was validly admitted before relying upon it for conviction. An acquittal can be reversed only if there exists independent evidence, beyond transferred evidence whose admissibility is disputed, that establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Kidnapping for ransom - all convicted appellants charged under this section; defines offence of kidnapping a person with intent to extort ransom
-
Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When determining whether to impose death sentence or commute it to life imprisonment, courts must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the crime and the criminal. Even in cases of heinous, planned murders of multiple victims, if mitigating circumstances exist—such as young age at time of commission (23-29 years), economically disadvantaged background, demonstrated capacity for reformation and education during prolonged custody (over 10 years), absence of prior criminal record, and absence of evidence that accused are beyond rehabilitation—the alternative option of life imprisonment is not unquestionably foreclosed. Therefore, death sentences can and should be commuted to life imprisonment in such cases. Life imprisonment is the rule; death sentence is the exception applicable only in the rarest of rare cases.
On this section: Kidnapping or abduction for ransom; appellants exonerated of this charge by High Court as elements not established
-
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: Kidnapping for ransom with threat to cause death or hurt; distinguishing feature is demand for ransom; applicable to this case for demanding Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 75 lakhs
-
Jasbir Singh @ Jassa vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Inordinate delay in execution of death sentence, though a significant factor, cannot by itself be the sole ground for commutation of death sentence. The delay must be considered along with the nature and gravity of the crime. Time spent in judicial proceedings and review petitions at the instance of the convict should not be counted as delay. Only undue and long delay in disposing of mercy petitions or delay at the instance of the executive is material. In the present case, there is no such inordinate delay, and the heinous nature of the crime (cold-blooded murder of a 16-year-old child for ransom) precludes commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.
On this section: Kidnapping for ransom - punishable with death or life imprisonment
-
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks protection for life and liberty under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution following registration of a criminal case involving serious offences such as kidnapping for ransom, the High Court may direct the competent police authority to consider and decide the petitioner's protection applications within a specified time frame in accordance with law, without commenting on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
On this section: Offences of kidnapping for ransom and criminal conspiracy, which form the basis of the underlying FIR
-
Nandhi Raghu vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, bail may be granted under Section 439 CrPC if the evidence against the accused is weak or insufficient, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure the accused's appearance in court, prevent interference with investigation, and safeguard the interests of justice. The court must balance the seriousness of the charge with the strength of evidence and the accused's personal circumstances.
On this section: Kidnapping for ransom - the substantive offence for which the accused is charged; punishment is death or life imprisonment
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.
-
… The petitioner confessed to strangling the deceased, putting his dead body in a gunny bag and throwing it in the Meerankulam tank. The body of the deceased was recovered from the tank on the basis of the confessional statement. - 12. On the basis of the investigation, the petitioner was charged under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. [3]( page-8-1) The trial was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge on 30 July 2010. The Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner for the offences with which he was charged and sentenced him to (i) death with a fine of Rs.1000 for the offence under section 364A IPC, (ii) …
-
… U D G M E N T Impugned judgment dated 20th May 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the appeals preferred by Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam @ Deepak Kumar, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Madan Prasad Thathera, Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu, who have been convicted under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('Penal Code', in short). The aforesaid 6 convicts were sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life. Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.16 16:27:11 IST Reason: was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 7,00,000 …
-
… U D G M E N T Impugned judgment dated 20th May 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the appeals preferred by Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam @ Deepak Kumar, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Madan Prasad Thathera, Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu, who have been convicted under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('Penal Code', in short). The aforesaid 6 convicts were sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life. Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.16 16:27:11 IST Reason: was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 7,00,000 …
Questions about Section 364A
What have the courts held on Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code?
Gautam Kumar Devjibhai vs State of Gujarat (25 Apr 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Kidnapping for ransom - all convicted appellants charged under this section; defines offence of kidnapping a person with intent to extort ransom. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 364A 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 364A, section 364A IPC, section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 364a punishment in hindi and ipc 364a in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gautam Kumar Devjibhai vs State of Gujarat (25 Apr 2014).
What should I read with Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
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 364A of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 364A, 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.