Skip to main content

All about Kidnapping and Abduction under Indian Penal Code

 All about Kidnapping and Abduction under Indian Penal Code

By Shweta Nair


Kidnapping under Indian Penal Code begins with Section 359 which is a clarificatory section. It merely states that kidnapping is of 2 kinds: -

  • Kidnapping from India

  • Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship 


  1. Kidnapping from India


Section 360 states that whichever person transports or carries any other individual beyond the limits of India with no consent of that individual or with no consent of some other individual who is legally authorized to consent on that particular individual’s behalf is said to kidnap from India. 


Any person who is a citizen of our country enjoys certain privileges merely by reason of the fact that he is such a citizen. However, these privileges would not be available to him beyond the boundaries of India. And therefore, the law has made any act wherein one person conveys another beyond the limits of India without his consent, a punishable offence. 


  1. Kidnapping from Lawful Guardian 


Section 361 states that, 


Whichever person takes or lures any minor who is below the age of 16 years for males and below the age of 18 years for females or any person who is of unsound mind, out of the safekeeping and care of the lawful guardian, with no prior consent of the lawful guardian is said to kidnap from lawful guardianship. 


The genesis of the offence of Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship lies in the anxiety of the framers of the law to afford protection to a certain class of people that is young children of impressionable age who have not developed the requisite maturity of understanding to know what is good or bad for themselves. The idea being that even though the intention of all law is to protect the individuals in the society, the protection needed by all persons cannot be uniform. For example, the protection required by a frail 9-year-old girl cannot be the same as required by an able bodied 30-year-old man. However, this category has to be properly defined. Therefore, for the offence of Kidnapping from Lawful Guardian, the victim has to belong to the category. 


The difference of age of 2 years between males and females is to afford a little bit of additional protection to young females who in the very nature of things are more prone to be victims of the carnal lust of the society. Persons of unsound mind are also included in the victim category. Because in the case of such persons, even though they may be of physically advanced age, mentally they are mere children. 


The next question which arises is: 

‘What is the protection which is to be given to such a minor’. Here the law feels that the interest of such minors is best subserved so long as they are in the custody of their lawful guardian and merely taking such persons out of the keeping of such lawful guardian without the consent of lawful guardian is itself a crime. It is important to note that the section does not include any state of mind to be revealed of the accused. Hence, the offence of Kidnapping from Lawful Guardian is an exception to the doctrine of Mens Rea. 


It is also to be noted that obviously the consent of the minor is immaterial. 


It is also to be noted that the term lawful guardian does not only mean the parents of the minor but includes any person legally entrusted with the custody of the minor. 


Another requirement of Section 361 is that the accused has to take away the victim out of the keeping of the lawful guardian. This does not mean that the minor has to be taken away from her home. This protection of the lawful guardian is like an invisible shell which moves with the minor wherever he or she goes. 


Therefore, even a case where the accused has taken away the minor from her college or railway station would amount to taking out of keeping. In Varadarajan v. State of Madras, where the minor girl was pact away to her relative’s house in order to prevent her having any friendship with the accused and where the minor of her accord abandoned her uncle’s house and called the accused to come and pick her up from the highway, it was held that taking out of the keeping was not satisfied and hence the accused was not guilty. 


However, in Thakorilal Vadgama v. State of Gujarat, where the facts were almost identical but the difference being that there was a history of the accused telling the victim that we should elope. The court held that he would be guilty. The court stated that the difference between the two cases was, in Varadarajan’s case, at no point of time did Varadarajan suggest to the victim that they should run away together. In Vadgama’s case, the accused was guilty of planting the seeds of allurement in the mind of minor girl. 


Where the victim does not belong to the category of age limit prescribed for males and females or cases where the victim has no lawful guardian, the IPC deals with such cases under Section 362 which is the offence of abduction. 


It states that, whichever person by force coerces or by dishonest means persuades another individual to go from nay place is said to abduct that individual. 


Though Kidnapping has a penal section in Section 363 prescribing punishment for it, abduction has no penal section which means it is not culpable unless it is done with objects mentioned in subsequent sections. 


The severity of offence of kidnapping and abduction and consequent punishment increases if done for objects like- to murder, for ransom, for begging, to secretly and wrongfully confine, of a woman to compel her marriage, for slavery, for trafficking etc. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree