The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused in a murder case, ruling that a trial court cannot convict an accused for the offence of kidnapping or abduction to murder under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when no such charge was framed during the trial.

The bench of  Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih clarified that Section 364 IPC is not a “minor offence” of murder under Section 302 IPC, and therefore conviction under it without a formal charge violates fair trial principles.

The prosecution alleged that on November 25, 1998, the accused visited the house of the complainant and took the complainant’s son, Dinesh, with him on the pretext of going to watch a movie. The victim did not return home, and his body with gunshot injuries was found the next morning. An FIR was subsequently registered for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC against the accused and others. 

After trial, the Sessions Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC. However, it held that the accused had taken the deceased from his house before the murder and therefore convicted him under Section 364 IPC (kidnapping or abduction in order to murder). The other accused were acquitted of murder. 

The Allahabad High Court overturned the conviction, noting that no charge under Section 364 IPC had been framed against the accused during the trial. The court held that convicting the accused for an offence without framing a specific charge would cause serious prejudice and violate the right to a fair trial.

The High Court further observed that Section 364 IPC cannot be treated as a lesser or minor offence of Section 302 IPC because both offences contain distinct legal ingredients. 

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the trial court was justified in convicting the accused under Section 364 IPC by invoking Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows conviction for a lesser offence even if the charge is for a greater offence.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention. The Court explained that the expression “minor offence” under Section 222 CrPC does not merely refer to an offence carrying a lesser punishment. Instead, the offences must be cognate offences with common ingredients.

The bench observed that the offence under Section 364 IPC (kidnapping or abduction with intent to murder) is distinct from the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC, and therefore cannot be treated as a minor offence within the meaning of Section 222 CrPC. 

The Court also noted that the prosecution evidence did not establish that the accused had forcibly taken or abducted the deceased. Witness testimony indicated that the deceased had accompanied the accused voluntarily. Additionally, statements implicating the accused were based on hearsay rather than direct evidence.

Case Details

Case Title: The State Of Uttar Pradesh  Versus Ram Swaroop @ Barkat

Citation: JURISHOUR-445-SC-2026

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 443 Of 2012

Date: 18/03/2026

Read More: Penal Rent for Retaining Staff Quarters Can Be Adjusted Against Gratuity: Supreme Court