Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Of Kidnapping, abduction, slavery and forced labour
Section 364A: Kidnapping for ransom, etc
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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 apprehension 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.]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 364A
-
Gauri Mahto @ Gauri Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Whether in the facts of the case, prima-facie offence u/s.364-A, IPC against appellant is made out or not.
-
The State of Chattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc.
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the criminal appeal preferred by accused-respondent and dismissing acquittal appeal preferred by the State, thereby acquitting both the accused persons.
-
P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending…
-
Gaurav Maini v. The State of Haryana
Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC.
-
Rajesh & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder, and where the prosecution’s case essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the…
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Ravi Dhingra v. The State of Haryana
- Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
- Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam@ Deepak Kumar v. The State of Bihar
- Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda
- Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana
- P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/S. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
- Satish @ Sabbe v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- H Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore (Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.446-447 of 2019) in
- Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand
- Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore
- Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
- Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Birbal Choudhary@ Mukhiya Jee v. State of Bihar
- Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
- Harpal Singh @ Chhota v. State of Punjab
- Usmanganjadambhaivahora v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Vikram Singh@ Vicky &Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Ranjeet Kumar Ram@ Ranjeet Kumar Das v. State of Bihar
- Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana