NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW

RANCHI

KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

SUBMITTED TO : DR. JULIAN SEAL PASARI (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR )

LAW OF CRIME

SUBMITTED BY: ANIRUDH PRATAP CHANDRA (SEMESTER: IV)

SECTION B, ROLL NO. 1158

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard work and
honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the generous cooperation of various
persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them with words is beyond the domain of my
lexicon.

This project wouldn’t have been possible without the help of my teacher Dr. Julian Seal Pasari, Faculty
Member, NUSRL, Ranchi, who had always been there at my side whenever I needed some help
regarding any information. She has been my mentor in the truest sense of the term. The administration
has also been kind enough to let me use their facilities for research work, I thank them for this.

Anirudh Pratap Chandra

2|Page
 DECLARATION

The researcher hereby declares that the work reported in the B.A. LL. B(Hons.) project report entitled
“Kidnapping and Abduction” submitted at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
is an authentic record of the work carried out under the supervision of Dr. Julian Seal Pasari. I have
not submitted this work elsewhere for any degree/diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of
my project.

Anirudh Pratap Chandra

3|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 1: KIDNAPPING....................................................................................................................... 7

KIDNAPPING FROM INDIA ................................................................................................................. 7

KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP............................................................................. 7

PUNISHMENT FOR KIDNAPPING .................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2: ABDUCTION...................................................................................................................... 12

DISTINCTION BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION ....................................................... 14

CHAPTER 3: SPECIFIC NATURE OF KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION ......................................... 15

KIDNAPPING OF MAIMING FOR BEGGING .................................................................................. 15

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING IN ORDER TO MURDER ............................................................ 16

KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM ............................................................................................................. 16

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO SECRET AND WRONGFUL ..................... 17

CONFINEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 17

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO COMPEL HER MARRIAGE ............................. 18

PROCURATION OF MINOR GIRL ..................................................................................................... 19

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING TO SUBJECT PERSON TO GRIEVOUS HURT ........................ 20

WRONGFULLY CONCEALING OR KEEPING IN CONFINEMENT KIDNAPPED OR .............. 21

ABDUCTED PERSON .......................................................................................................................... 21

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING CHILD UNDER TEN YEARS WITH INTENT TO STEAL ...... 22

FORM ITS PERSON ............................................................................................................................. 22

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................... 23

INTRODUCTION
4|Page
Kidnapping or Abduction in any form curtails from the liberty of an individual. Especially, it
impinges the right to life guaranteed under art 21 of the Constitution of India and human rights. It
causes terror in the mind of the people and has deleterious effect on ivilized society1. Hence why
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with these offences specifically from S. 359 to S. 369.

Both kind of offences, have an object to it and happen in different circumstances and be committed
upon the fulfillment of all ingredients necessary for such commission.

In this project I will discuss the basic concepts of each form of kidnapping and abduction, along
with the object of such section and case laws based on these sections.

1
Tarun Bora v. State of Assam (2002) 7 SCC 39

5|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
To study and understand the basic concepts of each form of kidnapping and abduction.

METHODOLOGY

This research project has been completed using descriptive – analytical approach, using secondary
data.

MODE OF CITATION

This research project has been made following the Bluebook Style of Citation (19th Ed.)

6|Page
 CHAPTER 1: KIDNAPPING
359. Kidnapping. —Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from 1 [India], and kidnapping from
lawful guardianship.2

KIDNAPPING FROM INDIA

360. Kidnapping from India. —Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of 1 [India]
without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of
that person, is said to kidnap that person from [India]. The IPC recognises two kinds of
Kidnapping: kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.3

The words used in the section are ‘beyond the limits of India’. This means that the offences under
this section are complete, the moment a person is taken outside the geographical territory of India.
It is not necessary that the person should reach their destination in some other foreign territory. By
the same token, if a person is apprehended before he crosses the Indian border, then the offences
will not be complete. At best, it may amount to an attempt to commit the offence of kidnapping
form India under s 360, IPC. Till then, he has a “locus poenitentiae”.

Hence the essential ingredients to fulfill this section is:

(a) taking any person beyond the limits of India

(b) and this act of taking the person beyond the territory of India, must have been done with
the consent of this person

The term ‘India’ has been defined in S.18, IPC as the territory of India excluding the state of
Jammu and Kashmir. The taking away of a person outside this territory of India is made a separate
offence, because it has the effect of removing a person from the jurisdiction of the Indian Law
enforcing agencies.

KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP

361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. —Whoever takes or entices any minor under
[sixteen] years of age if a male, or under [eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of

2
Indian Penal Code, 1860
3
Ibid

7|Page
unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind,
without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful
guardianship.

Explanation. —The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully entrusted
with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Exception. —This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes
himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled
to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful
purpose. 4

Section 361 deals with taking away of minor children or person of unsound mind from lawful
guardianship. It is equivalent to what is termed ‘child stealing’ in England.

The object of the section is to protect minor children and person of unsound mind from being
seduced, harmed or otherwise exploited by others. It is to afford protection and security to the
wards. It also protects the right of the guardians to control and take lawful charge of their wards
who may be minors and/ or people of unsound mind.

Hence, to kidnap a grown-up person of sound mind , would not amount to an offence under this
section.

Hence, this section has four essentials:

(a) taking or enticing away of a minor or a person of unsound mind

(b) such minor should under 16 years of age, if a male, and 18 years of age, if a female
(c) the taking and enticing must be done out of the keeping of the lawful guardian
(d) such taking or enticing must be done without the consent of the lawful guardian

4
Indian Penal Code, 1860

8|Page
Taking and Enticing

The Supreme Court observed the interpretation of ‘Takes or entices’ in the following cases:

• In S Varadarajan V. State of Madras5 , a girl who was on the verge of attaining majority,
voluntarily left her father’s house, arranged to meet the accused at a certain place and went
to the sub – registrar’s office, where the accused and the girl registered an agreement to
marry. There was no evidence whatsoever that the accused had ‘taken’ or ‘enticed’ her out
of the lawful guardianship of her parents, since there was no active part played by the
accused to persuade her to leave the house. It was held that no offence under this section
was made out.
In this case the SC interpreted that this section is more for the protection of minors and
persons of unsound mind than the rights of guardians of such persons and that a person
who allows a minor, who is already out of the keeping of the guardian, to accompany him
commits no offence under this section.
• In State of Harayana V. Raja Ram6 , the prosecutrix was a young girl of 14 years. She
became friendly with a person called Jai Naraian, aged 32, who was a frequent visitor.
When Jai Naraian was forbidden by the prosecutrix’s father from coming home, he sent
messages through one Raja Ram. She was constantly persuaded to leave the house and
come with Jai Naraian, who would keep her in a lot material comfort. One night, the
prosecutrix arranged to meet Jai Naraian in his house. She went to his house, where she
was seduced by Jai Narain. Jai Narain was convicted under S. 3767 for rape of minor and
Raja Ram under S. 3668. The question before the supreme court was whether Raja Ram
could said to have ‘taken’ the prosecutrix, and since she was willing to be taken out of the
keeping of the lawful guardian, would be sufficient to attract the section?

5
AIR 1965 SC 942, (1965) 2 CrLJ 33 (SC); also see Lalta Prosadv. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1276; Deb
Kumar Jain v. Kamala Bai (1983) 2 Crimes 85 (MP); Manornjan v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 1 Crimes 69 (Ori).
6
AIR1973 SC819, 1973CrLJ 651 (SC)
7
Indian Penal Code, 1860
8
Ibid

9|Page
 The SC here observed that, “Persuasion by the accused, which creates willingness on the
part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient
to attract the section.”

Hence, all that is required to bring an act within the purview of this section, is to ‘take or entice’ a
minor or a person of unsound mind out of the keeping of the lawful guardian. ‘Taking’ implies
neither force nor misappropriation. It means “to go to”, to escort or to get into possession. The
consent of the minor child is of no relevance. But there must be some active part played by the
accused for ‘taking’ the minor.9 Simply permitting or allowing a minor to accompany one will not
amount to an offence. There is a difference between ‘taking’ and ‘allowing’ a person to accompany
them.10

Enticing

The word ‘entice’ connotes the idea of inducement of pursuance by offer of pleasure or some other
form of allurement. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but
imperceptible impression culminating after some time in achieving its ultimate purpose of
successful inducement.11

Promise of marriage made to a minor girl for leaving the house of the lawful guardian was held to
be an enticement.12

Out of Keeping of Lawful Guardian

Section 361 makes the taking or enticing of any minor person or person of unsound mind ‘out of
the keeping of the lawful guardian’ an offence. The meaning of the words ‘keeping of the lawful
guardian’ came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the State of Harayana v. Raja

9
State v. Rajayyan (1996) CrLJ 145 (Ker); Gaurish v. State of Maharashta (1997) CrLJ 1018 (Bom.); Deep Chand @
Dipu v. State (National Capital Territory, Delhi) (2001) CrLJ 463 (Del)
10
Biswanath Mallick v State of Orissa, 1995 Cr LJ 1416 (Ori)
11
Thakorlal D Vadgama v. state of Gujarat AIR 1973 SC 2313, (1973) CrLJ 1541 (SC)
12
Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120 : AIR 2004 SC2472 : 2004 Cr LJ 2553 13
AIR 1973 SC 819 CrLJ 651 (SC)

10 | P a g e
Ram.13 The court observed that the word ‘keeping’, in the context, cannotes the idea of charge,
protection, maintenance and control. The court compared it with the language used in English
Statues, where the expression used was ‘taken out of the possession’ and not ‘out of the keeping’.
The difference in the language between English statues and this section only goes to show that s
361 was designed to protect the scared right of the guardians with respect of their minor wards.

The term used in the statue is ‘lawful guardian’ and not ‘legal guardian’. The term lawful guardian
is a much wider and general term than the expression ‘legal guardian’. ‘Legal guardians’ would be
parents or guardians appointed by courts. ‘Lawful guardian’ would include within its meaning not
only legal guardians but also such person likes a teacher, relatives etc, who are lawfully entrusted
with the care and custody of minor.13

Age of Minor

As per the section the age of minor child at the relevant point in the time should be less than 16 in
respect of a male, and less than 18 in respect of a female, in order to constitute an offence under
this section.

PUNISHMENT FOR KIDNAPPING

363. Punishment for kidnapping. —Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful
guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.15

In Chandrakala v. Vipin menon 14 , the supreme court declined to convict the father, who was
accused of kidnapping his minor daughter who was living with her maternal grandfather due to
strained relationship between her parents, on the ground that the accused was the natural guardian
of the child.

13
State v. Harban Singh Kisan singh AIR 1954 Bom 339; Kesar v. Emperor Air 1919 Pat 27
15
Indian Penal Code, 1860
14
(1993) 2 SCC 6

11 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 2: ABDUCTION

362. Abduction. —Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to
go from any place, is said to abduct that person.15

This section defines the term ‘abduction’. Abduction per se is not offence under the IPC16 and
hence is not punishable.17 It is an offence when it is accompanied by certain intent to commit
another offence. Force or fraud is essential to make abduction punishable.

The essential ingredients of this section are:

(a) Forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means;

(b) The objects of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any
place.

Only if the abduction falls in the categories provided under Sections - 364, 365, 366, 367 and
36918, will it amount to an offence. Thus, abduction is an offence only if it is done with intent to :

(a) in order to murder (S. 364);

(b) Secretly and wrongfully confining a person (S. 365);

(c) Inducing woman to compel her marriage (S. 366);

(d) Subject person to grievous hurt, slavery etc (S. 367);

(e) abducting child under ten years with intent to steal from its person (S. 369).

15
Indian Penal Code, 1860
16
Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1960 SC 67, (1960) CrLJ 154 (SC)
17
Chote Lal v. State of Harayana AIR 1979 SC 1494, (1979) CrLJ 1129 (SC)
18
Indian Penal Code, 1860

12 | P a g e
By Force

The term ‘force’ as embodied in S. 362 of the IPC, means the use of actual force and not merely
show of force or threat of force.19 Where an accused threatened the prosecutrix with pistol to make
her go with him, it would amount to abduction under this section.20

Deceitful Means

Under this section, inducing a person by deceitful means to go from any place is also an offence.
Deceitful means is used as an alternative to ‘use of force’. Thus, a person can use force to compel,
or in the alternative deceive a person to leave a place. Either way, it amounts to an offence.
Deceitful means misleading a person by making false representations and thereby persuading the
person to leave any place.

To go from any place

An essential element of abduction is compelling or inducing a person to go from ay place. It need

not be only from the custody of the lawful guardian as in the case of kidnapping. For unlike
kidnapping, abduction is a continuing offence. The offence of kidnapping is complete; the moment
a person is removed from India or from the keeping of lawful custody of guardian. But, in the case
of abduction, a person is abducted not only when he/she is first taken away from any place, but
also when he/she is subsequently moved from one place to another. A kidnapped girl managed to
escape from the kidnappers when she met the accused, who misrepresented to her that he was a
police constable and would take her to the police station. But instead, he took her to his house,
kept her there, demanded and took a ransom of Rs. 600 from her mother, before he handed her
back. It was held that his act amounted to abduction.21 Where a woman is passed from hand to
hand in several places, each of the persons will be guilty of offence of abduction.22

19
See Hari Singh Gour Penal Law of India, vol 3, 11 edn, Law Publishers, Allahabad 1998, P 2480
20
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Harayana AIR 1972 SC 2661, (1973) CrLJ 179 (SC)
21
Bhadur Ali v. King Emperor AIR 1923 Lah 158
22
AIR 1929 Lah 713

13 | P a g e
DISTINCTION BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION
KIDNAPPING ABDUCTION
Kidnapping from guardianship is committed Abduction may be in respect of any person.
only in respect of a minor or a person of
unsound mind.

Person kidnapped is removed out of lawful No such thing necessary. It has reference
guardianship. A child without a guardian exclusively to the person abducted.
cannot be kidnapped.

Taken away or enticed to go away with the Force, compulsion and deceitful means are
kidnapper. The means used are irrelevant. used

Consent of the person kidnapped is immaterial Consent of the person condones the offence.
Intent of the kidnapper is irrelevant. Intent of the abductor is all-important factor
Not a continuing offence. It is complete as It is continuing offence. It continues so long as
soon as the minor or person of unsound mind the abducted person is removed from one place
is removed from lawful guardianship. to another.

Kidnapping from guardianship is a substantive Abduction will be an offence only if done with
offence intents specified in the sections 364, 365, 366,
367 and 369.23

23
Indian Penal Code, 1860

14 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3: SPECIFIC NATURE OF KIDNAPPING AND
ABDUCTION

KIDNAPPING OF MAIMING FOR BEGGING

Section 363A. Kidnapping or maiming a minor for purposes of begging. – (1) Whoever
kidnaps any minor or, not being the lawful guardian of a minor, obtains the custody of the minor,
in order than such minor may be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever maims any minor in order that such minor may be employed or used for the purposes
of begging shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine

(3) Where any person not being the lawful guardian of a minor, employs or uses such minor for
the purposes of begging, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that he kidnapped
or otherwise obtained the custody of that minor in order that the minor might be employed or
used for the purposes of begging.

(4) In this section,-

(a) Begging means

(i) Soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether under the pretence of singing,
dancing, fortune- telling, performing tricks or selling articles or otherwise.
(ii) Entering on any private premises for the purposes of soliciting or receiving aims;
(iii)Exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or extorting alms, any sore,
wound, injury, deforming or disease, whether of himself or of any other person or of
an animal;
(iv) Using a minor as an exhibit for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms;
(b) ‘minor’ means –
(i) In the case of a male, a person under sixteen years of age; and (ii) In the case of a
female, a person under eighteen years of age.

15 | P a g e
This section was introduced in the year 1959. It was inserted to convert the growing of ‘organised
begging’ wherein unscrupulous persons were abducting children and maiming them for the
purpose of begging. The term ‘begging’ is defined in clause (4) of this section. Clause (3) of this
section introduces the presumption that if a person other than the lawful guardian uses or employs
a minor for begging, then unless the contrary is proved, it will be presumed that he kidnapped the
child.

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING IN ORDER TO MURDER

364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. —Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person
in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being
murdered, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

(a) A kidnaps Z from India, intending or knowledge it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to
an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A
has committed the offence defined in this section.

This section will apply if person has been abducted with intention that he be murdered.24 The actual
murder of the person is not required. It is sufficient that there was abduction with the intent to
murder.25

KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM

364A. 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 apprehension that such person may be put to death or

24
Upendra Nath v. Emperor AIR 1940 Cal 561; Paras Nath Mani Tipathi v. State (2000) CrLJ 3882 (All); Subhash
Chandra Panda v. State (2001) CrLJ 4108 (Ori).
25
State of west Bengal v. Mir Mohmad Omar AIR 2000 SC 2998, (2000) 8 SCC 382.

16 | P a g e
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.

This section was inserted by criminal law (Amendment) Act 1993 [and further amended by the
Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act 1995] to provide for severe punishment for abducting or
kidnapping a person and keeping him continuously under detention and threatening him to cause
death or hurt or creating a reasonable apprehension that he may be put to death or hurt to compel
the government or foreign state or international inter-governmental organisation or any other
person to refrain from doing any act or to pay a ransom as demanded by kidnapper or abductor.

In Netra Pal v. State (National capital Territory of Delhi),26 the Delhi High Court, in set of peculiar
facts, delved into some key words and ambit of S. 364A of the IPC. The raiding party recovered
from the accused, the kidnapped child and a letter demanding ransom. He had neither posted the
letter nor personally contracted the family of the child for three days after kidnapping till he was
arrested. The high court held that mere intention to demand is translated into action of the accused
by communicating his demand to the person concerned. Unless the price of retrieval or rescue is
made, the question to pay ransom does not arise as the words ‘to pay’ warrant setting the demand
for payment in motion. The court, therefore, declined to convict the accused for kidnapping for
ransom as he, by keeping his letter of demand with him only, did not convey his demand for ransom
to release the child.

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO SECRET AND WRONGFUL

CONFINEMENT

365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. —
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and
wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

26
(2001) CrLJ 1669 (Del).

17 | P a g e
This section comes into play when a person kidnaps or abducts another with intention to secretly
and wrongfully confine him.27 Such an intention of the kidnapper or abductor has to be judged
from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.28

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO COMPEL HER MARRIAGE

366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. —Whoever
kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely
that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced
or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to
illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; [and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation
as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any
woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will
be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as
aforesaid].

Mere abduction does not warrant S. 366. It comes into operation only when the kidnapper or
abductor abducts her for the purpose mentioned therein. 29 Even subsequent intent or act of
intercourse with kidnapped or abducted girl cannot bring in the case within the preview of S. 366,
if such an intent was absent at the time when the accused enticed the girl.30 ‘Abduction’ under this
section becomes punishable if the victim had been carried of illegally by ‘force’ or ‘deception’
from one place to another place.31 This section is not directed against seduction under coercion or
under circumstances when she is entirely in the power of the seducer and when her consent would
be nothing more than a mere submission to the will of the seducer. Abduction for forcible sexual
intercourse or forcible marriage, or seduction for illicit intercourse are the main ingredients of this

27
Akbar Ali Emperor AIR 1925 Lah 614; Roshan v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 All 51.
28
State of Uttar Pradesh v. laiq Singh (1986) CrLJ 584 (All); Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra (1997) SCC (Cri) 840.
29
Chhotelal v. State of Harayana AIR 1979 SC 1497 (1979) Cr LJ 1126 (SC); Upendra Baraik v. State of Bihar (2001)
Cr LJ 286 (Par); Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2006) 8 9SCC 560.
30
Dalchand v. State of Uttar Pradesh
31
Rajinder v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 721.

18 | P a g e
section. The essence of crime is compulsion. 32 Seduction in this section means not merely
inducement to submit to sexual intercourse for the first time, but induces subsequent illicit sexual
intercourse as well.33 However, in the case of a woman who habitually carries on the profession of
a prostitute, the essential elements of seduction are ruled out and hence the offence under S. 366
cannot be committed in connection with such a women.34

PROCURATION OF MINOR GIRL

366A. Procuration of minor girl. —Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl
under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may
be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another
person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

366B. Importation of girl from foreign country. —Whoever imports into 3 [India] from any
country outside India 4 [or from the State of Jammu and Kashmir] any girl under the age of
twentyone years with intent that she may be, or knowing it to be likely that she will be, forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, shall be punishable with imprisonment which
may extend to ten years and shall shall also be liable to fine.

Section 366A and 366B were inserted in the Indian Penal Code 1860 in the year 1923 in pursuance
of the International Convention for Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children. They
intended to punish the export and import of girls for prostitution. Section 366A, which punishes a
person who makes a girl under 18 years of age to move from any place to another with intent to
force or seduce her into illicit intercourse with other person, deals with procuration of minor girls
from one part of India (except Jammu & Kashmir) to another. Section 366B deals with import in
India of a girl less than twenty-one years for prostitution from any foreign country or Jammu &
Kashmir.

32
Jinish Lal v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 605.
33
Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 1908 (1963) 1 Cr LJ 16 (SC); Kuldeep K Mahato v. State of Bihar
AIR 1998 SC 2694,(1998) 6 SCC 420; Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 2724 , (1998) 7 SCC 324.
34
Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 1908 (1963) 1 Cr LJ 16 SC

19 | P a g e
The term ‘illicit intercourse’ used in these provisions means sexual intercourse between man and
woman who are not husband or wife.37 And the word ‘seduced’ (to illicit intercourse) means
inducing or enticing or tempting a girl of the specified age to submit to illicit intercourse not only
for the first time but also at any time or on any occasion.38

For convicting a person under 366A it is essential to establish that he has induced a girl below the
age of 18 years to go from one place with the intend ( or knowledge) that she would be forced or

37
Keasl Mal v. Emperor AIR 1932 Lah 555
38
5 State of Bombay v. Gopichand Fattulmal AIR 1961 Bom 282, (1960) 63 Bom LR 408; Ramesh v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 1908.
seduced to illicit intercourse with someone other than himself. 35 In the absence of any proof
disclosing coercion or inducement by the accused, the accuse would be acquitted of charges under
S. 366A.40 Section 366-B makes it an offence to import a girl under the specified age from any
foreign country or the state of Jammu & Kashmir with intent or knowledge that she would be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.36

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING TO SUBJECT PERSON TO GRIEVOUS HURT

367. Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc.—
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or may be so
disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural
lust of any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

35
Manik Molla v. Emperor AIR 1945 Cal 432; Ganga Dayal Singh v. State of Bihar Air 1994 Sc 859, 1994 CrLJ
951 SC; Mahesha Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan (1999) CrLJ 4625 (Raj); Ranjeet Singh v. State of Bihar (2000) CrLJ
2574 (Pat); Krishna Mohan Thakur v. State of Bihar (2000) CrLJ 1898 (Pat.) 40 7 Jinish Lal Sah v. State of Bihar
(2003) 1 SCC 605.
36
Ramjilal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1951 Raj 33

20 | P a g e
In Dharshan Singh v. State of Punjab37, the Supreme Court convicted the accused under s 367 for
abduction the victim and mercilessly beating him.

WRONGFULLY CONCEALING OR KEEPING IN CONFINEMENT KIDNAPPED OR

ABDUCTED PERSON

368. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person. —

Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals
or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted
such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for
which he conceals or detains such person in confinement.

This section does not apply to the perpetrator of the offence of kidnapping or abduction but to his
accomplice who knowingly conceals the kidnapping or abducted person.38

To constitute an offence under s 368 of the IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution must establish
the following ingredients:

(1) The person in question has been kidnapped or abducted;

(2) The accused knew that the said person has been kidnapped or abducted; and

(3) The accused having such knowledge wrongfully conceals or confines the person concerned.

So far as the second ingredient is concerned, it is an interference to be drawn by the courts from
various circumstances. Whether there has been wrongful concealment or confinement under S.
368, is a matter to be considered from the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

In Smt Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh39, the accused had been charged of the offence of
stealing a new born child from its mother’s delivery bed in the maternity hospital. The child was
found in the bedroom of the accused, although she had not given birth to any new born child. The
Supreme Court upheld her conviction under S. 368, holding that under the circumstances, the

37
(1994) CrLJ 226 (SC)
38
Sohan Singh v. Emperor AIR 1929 Lah 180; Emperor v. Zamir 1932 oudh 28; Francis Hector v. Emperor AIR 1937
All 182; Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhaya Pradesh 1967 MPLJ 477.
39
AIR 1973 SC 201 (1973) 1 SCJ 682, (1973) CrLJ 267 SC.

21 | P a g e
interference of concealment and guilt concurrently drawn by the courts below were justifiable and
correct.

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING CHILD UNDER TEN YEARS WITH INTENT TO

STEAL FORM ITS PERSON

369. Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years with intent to steal from its person. —
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any child under the age of ten years with the intention of taking
dishonestly any movable property from the person of such child, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Under this section, as evidence from its phraseology, provides punishment for kidnapping or
abducting a child with the intention of taking movable property from the person of a such child.

CONCLUSION

It must be noted from the detailed understanding of all provisions relating to kidnapping or
abduction, dealt with in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that each section came in to existence for a
specific purpose and to address a specific issue, and that there is no general provision for these
two offences. Every offence has to be in a certain category. This makes it a very thorough and

well thought-out legislation, which addresses all the necessary evils and assigns punishment as per
the grievousness of the offence committed.

22 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

• Ratanalal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (Lexis Nexis, 36th Edn.)
• K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code (Universal law publishing Co., 4th Edn.)

23 | P a g e