OFFENCES AFFECTING HUMAN BODY

Lecture No. 13,14 & 15

 OFFENCES
• HURT
• GRIEVOUS HURT
• ACID ATTACK
• WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
• WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
• CRIMINAL FORCE
• ASSAULT
• KIDNAPPING
• ABDUCTION
 PRELIMS
• Sections 319-338 deal with the causing of hurt and grievous hurt and the punishment therefor. The
subject can be broadly divided into the following divisions:
• (1) Simple hurt (ss 319, 321, 323).
• (2) Grievous hurt (ss 320, 322, 325).
• (3) Causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or dangerous means (ss 324 and 326).
• (4) Causing grievous hurt by acid (ss 326A and 326B).
• (5) Causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property (ss 327and 329).
• (6) Causing hurt by means of poison (s 328).
• (7) Causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or compel restoration of property (ss 330 and
331).
• (8) Causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant (ss 332 and 333).
• (9) Causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation (ss 334 and 335).
• (10) Causing hurt or grievous hurt by endangering life or personal safety of others (ss 336, 337, 338).
 Simple hurt (ss 319, 321, 323).
• Section 319. - Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any
person is said to cause hurt.
• This section does not define any offence. It merely states what is the
meaning of 'hurt'.
• The definition of hurt appears to contemplate the causing of pain, etc.,
by one person to another.
• The expression 'bodily pain' means that the pain must be physical as
opposed to any mental pain.
• Pulling a woman by the hair is hurt. In order to come within this section,
it is not necessary that any visible injury should be caused on the victim.
• 'Causing disease' means communicating a disease to another person.
However, the communication of the disease must be done by contact.
• 'Infirmity' denotes an unsound or unhealthy state of the body. This
infirmity may be a result of a disease or as a result of consumption of
some poisonous, deleterious drug or alcohol. 'Infirmity' has been
interpreted by courts to mean inability of an organ to perform its normal
function.
• As per the section, the hurt must be caused to 'any person'. This means
'any person' other than the person causing the hurt. Self-inflicted hurt
does not come within the purview of this section.
 Section 321. Voluntarily causing hurt.--
• Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby
causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he
is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does
thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to
cause hurt".
• the most essential component of this section is 'intention'
to cause hurt, or the 'knowledge' that the act is likely to
cause hurt. If 'intention' or 'knowledge' is absent, then it
will not amount to voluntarily causing hurt.
 Section 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
• Whoever, except in the case provided for by sec-tion 334, voluntarily
causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees, or with both.
• As per this section, voluntarily causing hurt is punishable with simple or
rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to one year or with a
maximum fine of one thousand rupees or both.
• However, if an act comes within the purview of s 334, which deals with
causing hurt on provocation, then the punishment prescribed under this
section will not apply, because a lesser punishment of maximum
imprisonment of one month and a maximum fine of five hundred rupees
is provided under that section.
 Grievous hurt (ss 320, 322, 325).

• The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":

• First.—Emasculation.
• Secondly.—Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
• Thirdly.—Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
• Fourthly.—Privation of any member or joint.
• Fifthly.—Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
• Sixthly.—Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
• Seventhly.—Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
• Eighthly.—Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the
space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
 Interpretation
• unless a hurt caused comes within the injuries specified in s
320, this section will not apply.
• Clauses 1 to 7 of s 320 state the specific nature of injuries,
such as emasculation, loss of sight, loss of hear-ing, loss of
limb or joint, loss of use of any limb or joint, disfiguration of the
head or face, fracture or disloca-tion of a bone or tooth. The
eighth clause is a general clause which covers all injuries which
endanger life or which caused bodily pain or disrupted a
person's routine activity for twenty days or more.
 Duty of Court
• it is the duty of the Court to give a finding on its own whether
the hurt was simple or grievous. The Court is not concerned
with the classification made by a doctor as to whether the hurt
was simple or grievous.
• A doctor is to describe the facts in respect of the nature of
injury and the Court is to decide whether the nature of the
injury described by the doctor comes within any of the clauses
of section 320, IPC, 1860.
Clause 1 - 'Emasculation' means depriving a male of masculine vigour.
Clause 6 - Disfigurement of head or face - Disfiguration means doing a
man some external injury which detracts from his personal appearance but
does not weaken him, as the cutting of a man's nose or ears.
In Anta Dadoba, (1863) 1 BHC 101. -Where a girl's cheeks were branded
with a red-hot iron which left scars of a permanent character, it was held
that the disfigurement contemplated by this section was caused. -
Clause 7 - Fracture, dislocation bone, tooth.— If there is a break by
cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it, it
would amount to a fracture within the meaning of this clause. A mere
partial cut of the bone amounts to fracture and is, therefore, a grievous
injury within the meaning of section 320.
• Clause 8 - Endangering life, severe bodily pain, etc.—This clause
speaks of two things:
• (1) any hurt which endangers life, and
• (2) any hurt which causes the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days
(a) in severe bodily pain, or (b) unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
• Mere hospitalisation for more than twenty days does not ipso facto (the
very fact) turn the 'hurt' into 'grievous hurt'.
• Therefore, if the victim has not co-operated or not consented for oper-
ation, the 'hurt' caused would not be 'grievous hurt' and the accused
therefore cannot be held guilty for caus-ing 'grievous hurt'.
 Leading Case on Clause 8

• Formina Sebastio Azardeo v State of Goa, 1992 Cr LJ 107 SC; Dau Dayal v
State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr LJ 2321
• The line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous hurt is a
very thin line. In the one case the injuries must be such as are likely to cause death;
in the other, the injuries must be such as to endanger life.
• Example - The two accused persons tied their victim to an electric pole and
assaulted him only to teach him a lesson for spreading scandalous information
about the alleged love affair of the accused. Their victim died. There was no
evidence to attribute any particular overt act to any of them, nor of the intention of
any of them to cause death or that any of them was armed with a deadly weapon. It
was held that their offence fell within this clause because they endangered the life of
their victim and not under section 300 (murder).
 Important for prelims
• 319. Hurt. 320. Grievous hurt.
• 321. Voluntarily causing hurt. 322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt 325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt
• 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
by dangerous weapons or means

• 327. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act

• 329. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act

• 328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc. with intent to commit an offence -
Zaherkhuraani
 339. Wrongful restraint .-
• ‘Wrongful restraint’ means the keeping of a man but of a place where
he wishes to be and has a right to be.
• The essential ingredients of 'wrongful restraint' are:
• (i) voluntary ob-struction of a person, and
• (ii) the obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from
proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed.
• Physical obstruction by mere verbal prohibition constitutes wrongful
restraint.
• In wrongful restraint, physical presence of accused is not always
necessary.
• Example - where A builds a well across a path along which B has a
right to pass.
• Example - Where, therefore, the complainant and his wife and daughter occupied a
house and during their temporary absence, the accused put a lock on the outer door
and thereby obstructed them from getting into the house, it was held that the accused
was guilty of wrongful restraint.[ Arumuga Nadar v Emperor (1910) 11 Cr LJ 708]

In Raja Ram v State of Haryana, (1971) 3 SCC 945. -

• a woman and a 13-year old boy were summoned to the police station for
interrogation. The proviso to s 160, CrPC, provides that no woman or a male under
15 years of age should be summoned to the police station for interrogation. Instead,
they must be interrogated at the place where they reside. The accused, a police
officer, was found guilty of infringing s 160, CrPC. It was held that in view of this,
detaining of a woman and a 13-year old boy in the police station would amount to
wrongful restraint. The accused was found guilty under s 341, IPC, but not under s
342, IPC.
 340. Wrongful confinement.-
• Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that
person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to
confine” that person.
• Wrongful confinement (or 'false imprisonment’) implies a total restraint, not a partial
one.
• restraining of a person in a particular place or compelling him to go in a particular
direction by force amounts to wrongful confinement.
• A confinement cannot be wrongful if the person confined chooses to remain where
he is. Detention of the person wrongfully confined must be against his will.
• An illegal confinement without any bona fide belief in the existence of a legal right to
detain is sufficient.
• The period of confinement is immaterial
 Important for prelims
• There may be an ‘imprisonment within an imprisonment’.
• A person who is imprisoned may be illegally confined in a
solitary cell.
• Where the arrest was made by the police officers without
warrant for a non-cognizable offence, their action amounts to
wrongful confinement.
• However, where the arrest was made by a police officer under
a mistake of fact in good faith, it does not amount to wrongful
confinement. The court can award compensation for ‘false
imprisonment’ in cases where victim gains his freedom through
court order.
 Examples
• A, a wealthy and educated man in a town, where medical attendance
was available, chained up his brother, who was subject to fits of violent
insanity, for over three months in a cruel way. It was held that A could not
be said to have acted with due care and attention, and was guilty of
wrongful confinement.
• The essential ingredients of the offence of 'wrongful confinement' are:
• (i) wrongful restraint of a person, and
• (ii) the restraint must be to prevent that person from proceeding beyond
certain circumscribing limits beyond which (s)he has right to pro-ceed.
• Leading Case - Deep Chand v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527.
 Criminal Force
• Section 350 - A person uses ‘criminal force’ to another if-
• (i) he intentionally uses force to any person,
• (ii) without that person’s consent,
• (iii) in order to the committing of any offence, or
• (iv) intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the
use of such force he will cause, injury, fear, or annoyance to the person to whom the
force is used.
• ‘Force’ means the exercise of one’s energy upon another human being. It may be
exercised directly or indirectly. If A raises his stick to strike B, and the latter moves
away, A uses force within the meaning of this section.
• The word 'consent' should be taken as defined in s 90, IPC. There is some
difference between doing an act 'without one's consent' and 'against his will'. The
latter involves active mental opposition to the act
• The term ’battery’ of English law is included in ‘criminal force’.
• where A spits over B, A would be liable for using criminal force against B because
spitting must have caused annoyance to B.
• Similarly, where a house-owner tortured one of his tenants in order to compel him to
pay his rent and realized his dues.
• pulling a person away from fire, so as to save him from being burnt, or pushing or
dragging a person so as to prevent him from being run down by a vehicle are some
examples of force put to good use.
• Force becomes 'criminal force', only when it satisfies all the ingredients set out in s
350. Force should be used:
• (a) without the consent of the person and in order to the committing of an offence; or
(b) when it is used to cause injury, fear or an-noyance to the person on whom the
force is used.
 Assault
• An ‘assault’ is an attempt of a threat of using criminal force to another,
accompanied by a real or apparent capacity to carry out the threat at
once.
• the essence of the offence is the effect reasonably produced upon the
mind of the person threatened.
• The explanation to the sec-tion provides that mere words do not amount
to assault, unless the words are used in aid of the gesture or
preparation which amounts to assault.
 Example
• a person took a lathi and shouted that he will break head
of a police officer if he insists upon taking his thumb
impression. He was not guilty of assault. But where a
person shouts that he would be coming back and teach a
lesson to the police officer and accordingly he comes
back with a lathi, moves close to the police officer raising
a reasonable apprehension that he was about to use
criminal force, the accused would be guilty under this
section.
 Aggravated Forms of Assault or criminal force
• (i) to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty (Sec. 353); (ii) to a woman with
intent to outrage her modesty (Sec. 354); (iii) with intent to dishonour a person (Sec.
355); (iv) in attempting theft (Sec. 356); (v) to a person, in attempting wrongfully to
confine that person (Sec. 357).
• Section 354 - Mrs. R.D. Bajaj v K.P.S. Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 - (“bottom-slapping
case”), a lady IAS officer was slapped on her posterior at a gathering by the Director-
General of Police, Punjab. The Supreme Court held that the allegations did make out
offences under Sec. 354 and Sec. 509, IPC. It further held that an offence relating to
the modesty of a woman cannot be said to be “trivial” and thus. Sec. 95 of the I.P.C.
was not attracted.
 other examples of Assault
• 1. Pointing of a gun, whether loaded or unloaded, at a person at a short
distance away is bound to cause apprehension of violence in the mind of
the person at whom the gun is aimed at. Hence, it will amount to an
assault.
• (2) Fetching a sword and advancing with it towards the victim.
• (3) Lifting one's lota or lathi.
• (4) Throwing brick into another's house.
• (5) Advancing with a threatening attitude to strike blows.
• (6) if A pointed a gun at B, which B knew to be unloaded, then B could
not have been under fear of any harm. In order to constitute the offence
of assault, it is essential that the person apprehends that there will be
use of criminal force against him.
 ACID ATTACK

326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.

326B. Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.
New category of offence (acid attacks) is inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 2013 [Act 13 of 2013, section 2 (w.e.f. 3-2-2013)] on the recommendation of
Justice Verma Committee.

Expression “by throwing acid on or by administering acid” - merely because the

title to section 326A speaks about grievous hurt by use of acid, it is not a requirement
under the section that the injuries caused should be invariably grievous. Even if the
injuries are simple, the mere act of throwing or attempt would attract the offence under
sections 326A and 326B.
 Punishment
• Section 326A - simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years,
which may extend to imprisonment for life, and fine, for a person who, by throwing or
administering acid, voluntarily causes permanent or partial damage or deformity (not
necessarily to be irreversible) to any part of the body of an-other or causes grievous
hurt, burns, maiming, disfiguring, disabling any part of his body.
• While s 326B - simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term ranging between five
and seven years, with fine, for the person who throws or attempts to throw acid or
any corrosive substance on another or attempts to administer acid or corrosive
substance to him or to use any other means with the intention of causing permanent
or par-tial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability or grievous
hurt to that person.
• Further, the amount of fine to be imposed on perpetrator of the offence under s 326A
has to be 'just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the
victim' and it must be paid to the victim.
 Laxmi v UOI, 2013 (9) Scale 291
• - Guidelines by the Supreme Court to prevent Acid Attacks.
• Directed the state to consider -
• (i) Enactment of appropriate provision for effective regulation of sale of
acid in the States/Union Territories.
• (ii) Measures for the proper treatment, after care and rehabilitation of the
victims of acid attack and needs of acid attack victims.
• (iii) Compensation payable to acid victims by the State/or creation of
some separate fund for payment of compensation to the acid attack
victims.
 KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION
• Kidnapping and abduction are punishable under sections
359-369 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• The object of including such offences in IPC is to extend

protection to children of tender age from being abducted
or seduced for illegal and undesirable purposes and to
preserve and protect the rights of the parents and
guardians over their wards.
 Section 359 - Kidnapping
• Kidnapping is of two types: But there may be cases in which the two kinds
overlap each other. For instance, a minor may be kidnapped from India as well as
lawful guardianship.
1. kidnapping from India - “Whoever conveys (TRANSFER OR CARRY) any person
beyond the limits of 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.”
• For an offence under this section, it does not matter that the victim is a major or
minor.
2. 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 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.”
 KIDNAPPING FROM INDIA
• Expression - 'beyond the limits of India'. This means that the offence
under this section is complete, the moment a person is taken outside the
geographical territory of India. It is not necessary that the persons should
reach their destination in some other foreign territory.
• if, a person is apprehended before he crosses the Indian border, then the
offence will not be complete. At best, it may amount to an attempt to
commit the offence of kidnapping from India under s 360, IPC. Till then,
he has a locus poenitentia.
• Reason behind importing this provision - The taking away of a person
outside the 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
• Taking or enticing - The word “takes” means to cause to go, to escort
or to get into the possession; it does not imply force (actual or
constructive), or fraud. When the accused takes the minor with, whether
she was willing or not, the act of taking is complete.
• The word “entice” involves an idea of inducement by exciting hope or
desire in the other. - State of Haryana v Rajaram, AIR 1973 SC 819.
• Consent given by a minor or a person of unsound mind is not consent.
But there must be some act ive part played by the accused for 'taking'
the minor. Simply permitting or allowing a minor to accompany one will
not amount to an offence.
 (S. Vardarajan v State of Madras AIR 1965 SC 942).

• There is a distinction between “taking” and allowing a minor to accompany a person.

Where a minor leaves her guardian’s protection knowing and having capacity to
know the full import of what she is doing and voluntarily joins the accused, in such a
case there is no ‘taking’ by the accused. Something more has to be shown in a case
of this kind, as for example, some kind of inducement held out by the accused or an
active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the
guardian's house.
• Facts - In this case, a minor girl was living with her father and studying in a college.
She had become friendly with the appellant whom she wanted to marry. However,
her father did not approve of it and took her to the house of a relative and left there.
However, on the next day, she telephoned to the appellant asking him to meet her on
a certain road in that area and them went to that road herself. They then went to
Registrar’s office and got registered an agreement to marry. Thereafter they travelled
together to various places. The appellant was held not guilty.
 'out of the keeping of the lawful guardian',
• the word 'keeping', in the context, connotes the idea of charge,
protection, maintenance and control. It is not necessary that the
minor should be under physical possession of the guardian. It
suffices for the purpose of the section if it is under a continuous
control of the guardian.
• Hence, a minor, who goes on a visit either with or without
consent of the guardian, or goes on street, still is in 'keeping' of
the guardian, it goes 'out of the keeping' when it is driven away
from parental roof or control.
 EXPRESSION - LAWFUL GUARDIAN

• The term used in the IPC is 'lawful guardian' and not 'legal
guardian'.
• The expression 'lawful guardian' is a much more wider and
general term than the expression 'legal guardian'. '
• Legal guardian' would be parents or guardians appointed by
courts.
• 'Lawful guardian' would include within its meaning not only legal
guardians, but also such persons like a teacher, relatives etc,
who are lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of a minor.
 Age of the Minor
• should be less than 16 in respect of a male, and
• less than 18 in respect of a female.
• Consent of the guardian and not of the minor is relevant as the essence of the
offence of kidnapping is taking away a minor out of the keeping of the lawful
guardian without his consent.
• or any person of unsound mind - A person of unsound mind is different from an
unconscious (because of poisoning or anesthetic drug) per-son. 'Taking away' the
latter does not amount to kidnapping. - The unsoundness of mind should be
permanent and not temporary insanity.
• Section 363. Punishment for kidnapping.--Whoever kidnaps any person from
India or from lawful guard-ianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
 Suggestive Readings
1. Kishore Bhadke v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2017 SC 279
2. Charandas Swami v State of Gujarat, AIR 2017 SC 1761
3. State of Haryana v Raja Ram, 1973 Cr LJ 651 (SC); - Persuasion by the accused is
sufficient to constitute 'taking' within the meaning of this section. Consent of the
minor is wholly immaterial. It is only the guardian's consent that takes the case out of
the purview of this section.
4. [Reg v Roff (1864) 176 ER 466J - a forwardness on the part of the girl would not
avail the person taking her away from being guilty of the offence and that if by moral
force a willingness is created in the girl to go away with the former, the offence would
be committed unless her going away is entirely voluntary.
 SC Guidelines under State of Haryana v Raja Ram
(i) In the case of minor girls this section is attracted irrespective of
the question whether she is married or unmarried.
(ii) The consent of the minor is immaterial.
(iii) The motive or intention of the kidnapper is also immaterial.
(iv) If the kidnapped girl turns out be under 18 years of age, the
kidnapper must take the consequences, even though he bona fide
believed and had reasonable ground for believing that she was
over eighteen.
(v) The defence that the girl was of easy virtue would not be
sufficient to make accused not liable.
 SECTION 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.
• It must be noted that abduction per se as defined under s 362 is not an offence, and
hence is not punishable.
• It is an offence when it is accompanied by certain intent to commit another offence.
Force or fraud is essential to make abduction punishable.
• There should be an assault which is an offence against the human body and that
assault should be with the intention of abducting.16 Only if the abduction falls in the
categories provided under ss 364, 365, 366, 367 and 369, will it amount to an
offence.
• abduction is an offence only if it is done with intent to: (a) murder (s 364); (b)
secretly and wrongfully confining a person (s 365); (c) induce woman to compel her
mar-riage (s 366), and (d) subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc, (s 367), and
(e) steal from a person under ten years (369).
• The essential ingredients of this section are:
• (i) forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means, and
• (ii) the objects of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of
a person from any place.
• The term 'force', as embodied in s 362, IPC, means the use of actual
force and not merely show of force or threat of force.
• The expression ‘deceitful means’ includes a misleading statement.
• “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.
• An essential element of abduction is compelling or inducing a
person to go from any place. It need not be only from the
custody of lawful guardian as in the case of kidnapping.
• 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 being abducted not
only when he is first taken away from any place, but also when
he is subsequently removed from one place to another.
 Example
• 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. - [Bahadur Ali v King Emperor AIR 1923 Lah
158.]
 Distinction Between Kidnapping and Abduction
(1) Kidnapping from guardianship is committed only in respect of a minor (of the age
specified in s 361) or a person of unsound mind.
Abduction may be in respect of a person of any age..
(2) Person kidnapped is removed out of lawful guardianship.
No such thing necessary. It has reference exclu-sively to the person abducted.
(3) Taken away or enticed to go away with the kid-napper. The means used are
irrelevant.
Force, compulsion and deceitful means are used in abduction.
(4) Consent of the person kidnapped is immaterial.
Consent of the person condones the offence in abduction.
(5) Intent of the kidnapper is irrelevant.
Intent of the abductor is the all important factor.
 Leading Cases
• Biswanath Mallick v State of Orissa, 1995 Cr LJ 1416
• Sonu v State of Haryana, AIR 2017 SC 3441
• Birbal Choudhary alias Mukhiya Jee v State of Bihar, 2018 Cr LJ 954
• Vinod Kumar v State of Haryana, AIR 2015 SC 1032
• Abdul Karim v State of Karnataka
• Vinod v State of Haryana
• Akram Khan v State of WB, AIR 2012 SC 308.
 Facts and sections to be remembered
• Sections 363A to 369 of IPC, 1860 deal with aggravated forms of kidnapping
and abduction.
• 363A. Kidnapping or maiming a minor for purposes of begging.-added
through act of 1959 (15-1-1960)]
• 364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• 364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc - Inserted by Act of 1993
• 365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine
person
• 366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc
• 366A. Procuration of minor girl. - Inserted by Act of 1923
• 366 B. Importation of girl from foreign country. - Inserted by Act of 1923