Section 364 IPC is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302 IPC under Section 222 CrPC.

On November 25, 1998, the respondent allegedly lured the deceased, Dinesh, from his home under the pretext of watching a movie

The deceased’s body was discovered the following morning with gunshot wounds, leading to an FIR under Section 302 IPC

While the Trial Court acquitted the respondent of murder under Section 302, it convicted him under Section 364 IPC (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), reasoning that the act of luring the deceased was sufficiently established

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad subsequently reversed this conviction, holding that the absence of a formal charge under Section 364 IPC prejudiced the accused and that Section 364 is not a "minor offence" relative to Section 302 IPC

The State appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court.

The Court primarily examined Section 302 IPC (Murder) and Section 364 IPC (Kidnapping/Abducting in order to murder)

It applied Section 222 of the Cr.P.C., which permits conviction for a "minor offence" even if not specifically charged, provided the offences are "cognate" and share common essential ingredients

The Court relied on the precedent in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, which clarified that a "minor offence" is determined not just by a lesser punishment but by whether the two offences are cognate

It also referenced Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. regarding the validity of convictions on lesser charges

The Court observed that for Section 222 Cr.P.C. to apply, the two offences must be cognate, meaning their main ingredients are common

It determined that Section 302 and Section 364 IPC are separate and distinct offences with vastly different compositions; therefore, they cannot be considered cognate

The Court reasoned that Section 364 requires proof of kidnapping or abduction with the specific intent to murder, which is an independent legal framework from Section 302

Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of forceful taking or abduction, as the deceased left voluntarily with the respondent

Since no charge under Section 364 was ever framed, convicting the respondent under that section without prior notice violated fair trial norms and caused serious prejudice

The Court held that Section 364 IPC is not a minor or cognate offence of Section 302 IPC, and thus a conviction under Section 364 cannot be sustained under Section 222 Cr.P.C. if the accused was only charged under Section 302

The Court further concluded that the evidence did not support the elements of abduction required for a conviction under Section 364 IPC