KIDNAPPING, ABDUCTION AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION DISCUSSED WITH RECENT CASE LAWS AND STATISTICS

KIDNAPPING, ABDUCTION AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION DISCUSSED WITH RECENT CASE LAWS AND STATISTICS 1. INTRODUCTION
In the terminology of the common law in many jurisdictions (according to Blacks Law Dictionary), the crime of kidnapping is labeled abduction when the victim is a woman. In modern usage, kidnapping or abduction of a child is often called child stealing, particularly when done not to collect a ransom, but rather with the intention of keeping the child permanently (often in a case where the childs parents are divorced or legally separated, whereupon the parent who does not have legal custody will commit the act; then also known as child napping). The word kidnapping was originally kid nabbing, in other words slang for child stealing, but is no longer restricted to the case of a child victim.1

1.1 Child Abduction

Child abduction can refer to children being taken away without their parents consent, but with the childs consent. In England and Wales it is child abduction to take away a child under the age of 16 without parental consent. Abduction is the crime in English law of taking a) a girl under 16 from possession of her parent, or guardian, or b) a girl of 18 or defective woman of any age from such possession of unlawful sexual intercourse, or c) a girl under 21 to marry or have sexual intercourse, or d) taking away and detaining any woman with the intention that she shall marry or have unlawful sexual intercourse with a person, by force, or for the sake of her property. Abduction or kidnapping any child is also an offence. Abduction of voters is also a criminal act.2
1

http://www.man.org.np/mdcampus/ppt/17-Kidnapping%20and%20extortion-Ranendra%20Man.ppt, Walker, Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford Publications, New Delhi, 20th Edition, 1980, pg. 701

INDIAN PENAL CODE PROJECT SUBMISSION

Page 1

1.2.

Kidnapping

Kidnapping, according to Walker,3 is the common name for the common law offence of carrying away, or secreting, of any person against his will, or against the will of his lawful guardians. It may be constituted by false imprisonment, which is total restraint of a person and his confinement without lawful authority or justification.

1.3. Ten Conditions, Of Kidnapping In IPC:

India has comprehensive legislation to counter kidnapping, with the Indian Penal Code outlining 10 specific offences related to the purpose of the kidnapping. These are Kidnapping a minor for purposes of begging; Kidnapping in order to murder; Kidnapping for ransom; Kidnapping with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a Kidnapping a woman to compel her into marriage; Procuration of a minor girl; The importation of a girl from a foreign country; Kidnapping in order to subject a person to grievous harm, including slavery kidnapping a child under 10 years old; Stealing or buying a minor for the purpose of prostitution. 4 person;

3 4

Ibid, pg.3 http://www.man.org.np/mdcampus/ppt/17-Kidnapping%20and%20extortion-Ranendra%20Man.ppt.,

2. KIDNAPPING
Meaning of kidnapping in the local language include the abduction as synonym but the real difference in the understanding is following:

2.1 Section 359:

Kidnapping: Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. The literal meaning of kidnapping is child stealing. The draftsmen of the code said: the crime of kidnapping consists, according to our definition of it, in conveying a person without his consent or the consent of some person legally authorized to consent on his behalf, or with such consent obtained by deception, out of the protection of the law, or of those whom the law has appointed his guardians. This offence may be committed on a child by removing that child out of the keeping of its lawful guardian or guardians. On a grown-up man it can be committed only by conveying him beyond the limits of the Companys territories, or by receiving him on board of a ship for that purpose. The carrying of a grown up person by force from one place within the Companys territories to another, and the enslaving him within the Companys territories, are offences sufficiently provided for under the heads of restraint and confinement. The enticing of a grown-up person by false promises to go from place , may be a subject for a civil action, and , under circumstances, for a criminal prosecution; but it does not appear to us to come properly under the head of kidnapping.5

K.K Singh and R.Bagga, Indian Penal Code, The Law Book Company, Allahabad, 2nd edition, 1994, pg.2.

In Badlu Shah v Emperor6 it was held that Kidnapping and abduction do not include the offence of wrongful confinement or keeping, in confinement, a kidnapped person.7 The words kidnapping and abduction do not include the offence of wrongful confinement or keeping in confinement a kidnapped person.

2.2 Section 360:

Kidnapping from India: Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India.

Essential ingredients: The following are the essential ingredients of the offence under this section: 1) Conveyance of a person: To convey means to carry from one place to another. The conveyance or carrying is a continuous process until the destination is reached. In the case of any offence under this section, the destination must be some foreign territory. 2) Beyond the limits of India: these words in the section indicate that for an offence under it must be to some foreign territory. 3) Without the consent of that person or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person: A consent given under a misapprehension of fact, is not true consent.8

6 7

AIR 1929 All 454 Sarvaria SK, RA Nelsons Indian Penal Code ed. 9th , Vol. 3, LexisNexis Butterworths Publications, New Delhi pg. 3512 8 K.K Singh and R.Bagga, Indian Penal Code, The Law Book Company, Allahabad, 2nd edition, 1994, pg.3.

2.3 Section 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 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

The offence under this section may be committed in respect of either a minor or a person of unsound mind. To kidnap a grown-up person, therefore would not amount to an offence under it.9 The object of this section is at least as much to protect children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes, as for the protection of the rights of parents and guardians having the lawful charge or custody of minors or insane persons. Ingredients: This section has four main essentials10: 1. Taking or enticing away a minor person or a person of unsound mind. 2. Such minor must be under the age of sixteen years, if male, or under the age of eighteen years, if a female. 3. The taking away or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind. 4. Such enticing away must be without the consent of the lawful guardian. The taking need not be by force, actual or constructive, and it is immaterial whether the girl consents or not. There must be a taking of the child out of the possession of the parent. If a child leaves its parents house for a particular purpose with their consent, it cannot be said to be out of the parents keeping. 11
9

Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, pg. 649. 10 Restated in Biswanath Mallick v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLj 1416 (Ori). 11 Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008 at pg. 650.

The offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship is complete when the minor is actually taken from lawful guardianship; it is not an offence continuing so long as the minor is kept out of such guardianship. In determining whether a person takes a minor out of the lawful guardian, the distance to which the minor is taken away is immaterial. The act of taking is not, in the proper sense of the term, a continuous act: when once the boy or girl has been actually taken out of the keeping, the act is a completed one. If continuous, it would be difficult to say when the continuous taking ceased; it could only be when the boy or girl was actually restored to the keeping of the guardian.12 Enticing is an act of the accused by which the person kidnapped is induced of his own accord to go to the kidnapper. The word entice involves an idea of inducement or allurement by exciting hope or desire in the other. It may take many forms difficult to visualize. The word Taking in this section means nothing but physical taking.13 The word keeping implies neither apprehension nor detention but rather maintenance, protection and control, manifested not by continual action but as available on necessity arising and this relation between the minor and the guardian is certainly not dissolved so long as the minor can at will take advantage of it and place herself within the sphere of its operation.14 The guardianship of the mother does not cease while a minor is in the possession of another person who has been lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of such minor by the mother.15If the minor is not in the custody of a lawful guardian, the offence cannot be committed, whatever the belief of the taker may be. The taking or enticing of the minor out of the keeping of the legal guardian must be without his consent. The consent of the minor is immaterial. If a man by false and fraudulent representation induce the parents of a girl to allow him to take her away, such taking will amount to
12 13

Ibid. Basu N.D., Commentary on Indian Penal Code ed. 10th, vol. 2, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2007 pg. 1900 14 Vishnu v. State, 1997 Cr LJ 1724 15 K.K Ali, (1936) 15 Pat 817

kidnapping. In case of Parkash v. State of Haryana16 it was said that the two words takes and entices as used in Section 361, IPC are intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other. If the minor leaves her paternal home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361, IPC. Consent given by the guardian after the commission of the offence would not cure it. 17 The word lawful must be literally construed so as to distinguish it from legal guardian as a guardian maybe lawful without being legal. The expression lawfully entrusted signifies that the care and custody of a minor. Entrustment means the giving, handing over, or confiding of something by one person to another.

2.4 Section 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 extent to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. This section must be read with Section 361. The offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship penalized by this section is the offence which is defined by Section 361. 18 The person against whom the offence is committed must be under the age of sixteen, if a male, and under the age of eighteen years if a female. Where a girl of 23 years of age left her parents of her own will and married a man, section 363 or 366 was not attracted. voluntarily, his conviction u/s 363 was set aside.20
19

Where in a case of kidnapping the girl deposed that she had gone with the accused

16 17

2004 Cr.L.J. 595 SC Ganesh, (1909) 31 All 448 18 Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, p. 651 19 Oroos Fatima v Sr. Supdt of Police, Aligarh, 1993 CrLJ 1 (All) 20 Bhajan Lal v. State of U.P, 1996 CrLJ 460 (All)

3.

ABDUCTION

As expand kidnapping, abduction is also a crime under Indian Penal Code it is mentioned in following sections. 3.1 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

This section merely gives a definition of the word abduction which occurs in some of the penal provisions which follow. There is no such offence as abduction under the Code, but abduction with certain intent is an offence. Force or fraud is essential. Ingredients- this section requires two things21: 1. Forceful compulsion or inducement by deceitful means. 2. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any place. Force in Section 362 means actual force and not merely a show or threat of force. Deceitful means signifies anything intended to mislead another. It includes inducement and its scope is very wide. The intention of the accused, one may say, is a gravamen of the charge. The case of Rabinarayan Das22 is a pointer in this regard. Here the prosecutrix was blind. She wanted to go to her school. However, the petitioner took her to secretariat premises. Evidence of inducement is not forthcoming and yet there was nothing to prove that the woman had gone there out of her volition or free will.23 Abduction is a continuing offence. The abduction of a married woman comes under section 366 and the actual validity or otherwise of the marriage is immaterial. Mere
21

Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, p. 657 22 1992 Cri LJ 269 at p.273 23 B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Eastern Book Company,Lucknow, 2nd Edition, 2006, p. 528

abduction without a criminal intent of one of the kinds specified in the section is not recognized as an offence.

4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

The difference can be understood by the mentioned definition in a definitive way but to go into dept, when we put the practical and theoretical implication the following difference comesout in point 1. Kidnapping is committed only in respect of a minor under sixteen years of age if male and under eighteen years if a male or a person of unsound; abduction, in respect of a person of any age. 2. In Kidnapping, the person kidnapped is removed out of lawful guardianship. A child without a guardian cannot be kidnapped. Abduction has reference exclusively to the person abducted. 3. In Kidnapping, the minor is simply taken away. The means used may be innocent. In Abduction, force, compulsion, or deceitful means are used. 4. In kidnapping, consent of the person taken or enticed is immaterial; in abduction, consent of the person moved, if freely and voluntarily given, condones abduction. 5. In kidnapping the intent of the offender is a wholly irrelevant consideration: in abduction, it is the important factor. 6. Kidnapping from guardianship is a substantive offence under the Code; but abduction is an auxiliary offence, not punishable by itself, but made criminal only when it is done with one or other of the intents specified in S.364.24

24

Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, p. 658

5. AGGRAVATED FORMS OF KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

Sections 363A to 369 are aggravated form of kidnapping and abduction. Kidnapping is an offence in itself but abduction is not so the aggravated form not only offence but they are only liability clause in the statute.

5.1. 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 that such minor may be employed or used for the purpose 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 can be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Where any person, not being the lawful guardian of minor, employs or uses such minor for the purpose 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 purpose of soliciting or receiving alms; (iii) Exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or e extorting alms, any sore, wound, injury, deformity or disease, whether of himself or of nay 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. This Section was inserted in 1959 to put down effectively the evil of kidnapping children for exploiting them for begging. There are cases wherein minors are kidnapped are kidnapped and castrated with a view to make them eunuchs who could be useful as professional beggars. The offence under Section 363-A is triable by a Magistrate of the first class while under 363 A(2) is triable by a Court of Sessions. Barring this the offence under 363-A is cognizable, not bailable and not compoundable.25 Although men are also victimized, the overwhelming majority of those trafficked are women and children. According to official estimates, between 1 and 2 million women and children are trafficked each year worldwide for forced labour, domestic servitude, or sexual exploitation. An estimated 50,000 persons are trafficked each year to the United States. Trafficking is now considered the third largest source of profits for organized crime, behind only drugs and guns, generating billions of dollars annually. Child Trafficking26 is an inhumane offence against defenseless and innocent children. Millions of children are forcibly trafficked or coerced across borders only to be sold in the sex trade, for illegal adoption, for criminal activities, for work as domestic servants, beggars, soldiers, or for other purposes. The urgency to combat trafficking in children is understandable considering the heinous nature of the phenomenon it is an affront to principles of human dignity and morality and a severe violation of basic human rights. Principle 9 of the Geneva Declaration of Rights of the Child of 1924 states explicitly that the The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic, in any form. 27
25 26

B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2nd Edition, 2006, p. 529 Van Bueren ,The International Law on the Rights of a Child, Kluwer 1989 Trafficking in children is defined as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purposes of exploitation. 27 Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, Child Trafficking :The Recent emergence of the global issue,

Despite being in existence for centuries, Child Trafficking has only in recent years emerged as an issue of global concern due to the worldwide consensus and co-operation to join hands in fighting this heinous crime; With the amplification of international and national legal apparatus, the trafficking of human beings is perceived to be more than a crime it is a serious violation of human rights, childrens rights, labour rights and basic fundamental freedoms. Child Trafficking has become highly lucrative and increasingly worthwhile as women and children are considered commodities which can be sold several times over. With the permeable borders and the advancement of technology child trafficking has expanded around the Globe where the routes for trafficking children alter according to local conditions or supply and demand factors. It is no longer adequate to say that victims are trafficked from poor to the wealthier ones. Violence is not the necessary mode for child trafficking, as has been often misconceived, as the victims are tricked, deceived, forced, sold by their parents or otherwise coerced into situations, which they later cannot escape from.28

5.2. Section 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.

To establish an offence under this section it must be proved that the person charged with the offence had the intention at the time of the kidnapping or abduction that the person will be murdered or so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered. 29 If
retrieved from http://www.ewla.org/wf_dl/paper_Devi.doc Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, Child Trafficking :The Recent emergence of the global issue, retrieved from http://www.ewla.org/wf_dl/paper_Devi.doc 29 Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, p. 660
28

no evidence is available on the score, the accused cannot be convicted under this section. Where the witnesses saw the party of the accused persons forcibly taking away a woman, who was found dead a week later, and though there was nothing to connect them with the murder, there was evidence of the body being destroyed by them, they were convicted not of murder but only under this section and s. 201 for destroying evidence.30 In another case the two accused and the third person were seen disappearing together. They had drinks and moved away. The one who did not return home, his moustache, torn kurta and a few drops of blood were found by the side of a swollen river. Whether he was pushed, or he slipped could not be known. His companions were not convicted under this section.31 Where the accused persons, on false pretext of repaying the money to the deceased, induced him to accompany them to a distant place and after killing him, threw the body in a private ravine, their conviction under s. 364 along with sections 300 and 201 was upheld.32 In Sacha Singh v. State of Punjab33, during the period of insurgency, two young Sikh boys were abducted by armed assailants from their house on a dark night in the sight of their parents. They were killed within a short while by the abductors. The abductors were charged with murder. It was held that when more persons than one have abducted the victim, who was later murdered is within the legal province of the court to justifiably draw a presumption depending on the factual situation that all the abductors are responsible for murder. Section 34 of the Penal code could be invoked for the aid to meet the ends of justice.34 An abducted victim was murdered later on. It was held that the court can, depending on the factual situation, draw the presumption that the abductors are responsible for the murder. It is their responsibility to explain to the court what they had done with the victim. 35
30 31

Pati Ram v. State of U.P., 1990 Cr LJ 447 (All.). Mahavir v. State of U.P, 1990 Cr LJ 1605 (All). 32 Valiyaveetil Ashraf v State, 1994 Cr LJ 555 (Ker). 33 2001 Cr LJ 1734 (SC). 34 S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 14th Edition, 2006 at pg. 583. 35 Sacha Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001 Cr LJ 1734 (SC).

5.3. Section 364-A

Kidnapping for ransom, etc: Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention of the 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 death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization 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.

The kidnapped child was recovered from the custody of the accused by the raiding party. The letter demanding ransom was recovered from the pocket of the accused. He had neither posted it nor contacted any body for the purpose for three days till his arrest. The court said that there was no demand for ransom. An offence under this section was not made out. Conviction under section 363 and 365 was held proper.36 Hence the ingredients of this section are37: 1. Kidnapping or abducting any person 2. Threatens to cause death or hurt to such person 3. Compelling the Government or any person to pay ransom. Recent Case:

P. Liaquat Ali Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh38

A girl named Kearthi aged about 3 years was studying Nursery class in Sri Lakshmi English Medium School. PW-5 was her class teacher and PW- 6 the principal of school. PW-1 is grandfather and PW-2 is father of the said victim minor girl Kearthi. PW-7 is
36 37

Netra Pal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2001 Cr LJ 1669 (Del) Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, pg. 661. 38 (2009) 3 Cr. L.J. 3736 (S.C.)

their driver and PW- 3 is maid servant. On 3-7-2001, PW-7, the driver dropped the girl at the school at about 8-30 am. At about 8-45 am one person came to her class, informed the PW-5 her class teacher that parents of the child forgot to give syrup to her and on his request the girl was sent with him to administer the same. After noticing that the child has been carried away by him, the class teacher instructed PW-3 the maid servant to stop him. The said person did not stop though cautioned by PW-3 and so, she asked PW-8 who was coming by scooter to stop that person. When PW-8 stopped him and enquired about the matter, the said person informed that he was taking the child for administering syrup and saying so, he boarded a bus and went away. Thereafter, PW-3 went to shop of PW-4 and enquired from him who also informed her about the taking away of the child by said person. Later PW-3 and PW-5 went to PW-6 and informed about the incident to her, who in turn informed about the incident to the parents of the child. Parents came to the school, searched for the child in N.R. Peta area of Krnool and surrounding places. PW-3 and PW-5 narrated the physical features of the kidnapper. PW-12 registered the case on the basis of report and PW-13 took up further investigation. Later on 4-7-2001 a letter demanding Rs. 1 crore for releasing the child was received by PW-1, who handed over the same of PW-13, the investigation officer. On 9-7-2001 another letter addressed in the name of PW-2 was dropped in the house of PW-9 a neighbor of PW-1 demanding Rs.75 Lakhs with instruction to keep the amount in a bag and place it under a culvert which letter was also handed over to PW-13. On 10-7-2001 at about 12-30 pm on instruction of PW-13 a bag containing paper was placed at the place desired. Some persons were hiding in a nearby thorny bushes around the culvert. At about 1 pm the accused came to that place by a scooter picked up the bag and when he reached the road constables surrounded and caught hold of him and on enquiry the accused furnished his particulars. Thereafter the accused, took the police to a house which was locked from outsides. The accused opened the doors and led them to rear side bathroom where the child was found. PW-2 identified the child. Trial court held him guilty and passed the sentence of life imprisonment. It was held by the Supreme Court in appeal that section 364-a deals with separate type of offence where a ransom is distinguishing feature. In this case demand of ransom has clearly established and the role played by the accused has been analysed by the Courts below. The child was recovered

on disclosure made by the accused ho had kept him locked in a house. Therefore the accused was held liable to be convicted under section 364-A, IPC.

5.4. Section 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.

Section 365 requires an intention to confine a person secretly and wrongfully. Holding a person to ransom by his abductors is an offence under this section. 39 Where there was sufficient evidence to show that the victim woman abducted from her house and then taken to different places which included confinement to one place until she was recovered by the police, it was held that the accused could be convicted under this section and S. 368 but not section 366.40 There was ample evidence to show that the victim was taken away under deceit and then sold to a brothel house. She was not a minor at the time of the incident. Therefore, the accused could not be convicted under S. 366 or 372. They could be convicted under S.365.41

5.5 Section 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
39 40

B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Eastern Book Company,Lucknow, 2nd Edition, 2006 at p.530 Fiyaz Ahmed v. State of Bihar, 1990 Cr LJ 2241. 41 Shaik Ramjan v State, 1999 Cr LJ 2161.

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 she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punished as aforesaid.

Where a woman has no intention of marriage or lawful intercourse when kidnapped, this section applies.42 Ingredients: this section requires: 1. Kidnapping or abducting of any woman 2. Such Kidnapping or abducting must bei) 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 ii) 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; or iii) by means of criminal intimidation or otherwise by inducing any woman to go from place with the intent that she may be, or knowing that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.43 It is immaterial whether the woman kidnapped is a married woman or not. 5.5.1 KIDNAPS OR ABDUCTS ANY WOMAN:

If the girl was eighteen or over, she could only be abducted and not kidnapped, but if she was under eighteen she could be kidnapped as well as abducted if the taking was by force or the taking or enticing was by deceitful means.
42

44

Voluntarily going away for

Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, pg. 664. 43 Ibid. 44 Nawabkhan v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 1179 (MP)

marriage is not an offence under this section. Doubts about age, if not resolved satisfactorily, would go in favor of the accused.45 5.5.2 WITH THE INTENT THAT SHE MAY BE COMPELLED TO MARRY ANY PERSON AGAINST HER WILL : The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of the offence under this section. The volition, the intention and the conduct of the woman do not determine the offence; they can only bear upon the intent with which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman.46 Where only confinement was established, the Supreme Court held that the conviction was possible under S. 365 and 368 and not 366. 47 Once the necessary intent of the accused is established the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not in the event the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.48 5.5.3 FORCED OR SEDUCED TO ILLICIT INTERCOURSE:

The word forced is used in its ordinary dictionary sense and includes force by stress of circumstances. The expression seduced, used in this section and section 366-A, means inducing a woman to submit to illicit intercourse at any time.
49

Where a girl under

eighteen years of age is taken away from the keeping of her father by the accused with the object of marriage and section, he is guilty of an offence under this section, notwithstanding the fact that the girl accompanied him if her own accord and not as a result of force or misrepresentation. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (Kidnapping abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage).

45 46

Satish Kumar v. State, 1988 Cr LJ 565 (Del) Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, pg. 665. 47 Fiyaz Ahmad v. State of Bihar, 1990 Cr LJ 2241 48 Khalil-Ur-rahman, (1933) 11 Ran 213 (FB) 49 Ramesh, (1962) 64 Bom LR 780 (SC)

Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366, IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under the section. The Supreme Court made these observations while hearing an appeal challenging a conviction under Section 366 of the IPC. Gabbu was tried for committing offences under Section 366. The Session Court convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 366 and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court in the appeal preferred by the accused appellant confirmed the order of the Session Court following which the Supreme Court was moved. A Division Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and P P Naolekar, while setting aside the conviction and allowing the appeal observed that that a mere finding that a mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough. It must be further proved that the accused abducted the woman with an intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person 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. Further, the Bench observed that is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant-woman or compelled by force to go from any place that such inducement was by deceitful means. While dealing with the instant case the Bench observed that the prosecutrix had nowhere alleged that she was abducted with the intention to commit an offence. In overall consideration of the material placed on record by the prosecution, we do not find that the prosecution has proved that the accused-appellant has committed an offence under Section 366, IPC. There is a doubt as to the place of incident and the motive of the accused in taking away the prosecutrix. We find it difficult to believe in the story put up by the prosecutrix that she was forced to leave her place of residence under a threat by showing a knife to her, the court also observed. In order to constitute an offence a person must be carried off.

Recent Case:

State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan @ Hemant Janardhan Wankhede50

Prosecutrix, who is the daughter of complainant Ambaprasad Mishra, was residing with the family in Mangilal plots, Amravati. The accused-respondent was also the resident of the same locality. The prosecutrix was educated upto 7 th standard and she had taken her education in Municipal School No. 5 at Amravati. Her date of birth recorded in official documents was 4.6.1976 and the incident of kidnapping her by the accused took place on 21.4.1991. As such she was aged 14 years, 10 months and 17 days at the time of the incident. On 21.4.1991, the accused sent a message to prosecutrix through one Sachin and called her to come with a bag at a place near her school. Accordingly, the prosecutrix went at that place. Then the accused, prosecutrix and Sachin went by an autorickshaw to Chinchfail area of Amravati where the grandmother of the accused was residing. They reached there at about 1.00 p.m. The accused took his suitcase. Then the accused and prosecutrix who were accompanied by Sachin, arrived by an autorickshaw at Badnera Railway station. Sachin went back to Amravati from Badnera Railway Station and the accused and prosecutrix arrived at Nagpur by train. They reached Nagpur at about 5.00 p.m. Therefrom they went to Jhansi. They reached Jhansi early in the morning, i.e. at about 4.00 to 5.00 a.m. At Jhansi, they went to the house of the sister of the accused namely Lata. They stayed in one separate room in the house of accuseds sister for about 8 to 10 days. During this period, they used to sleep in that room and the accused practically on every night performed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. Then from Jhansi, the accused and prosecutrix arrived at Bichona and stayed there in the house of one Rajput for about 3-4 days and the accused performed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix twice. Then from Bichona, both of them came to Mundai. They resided at Mundai in the house of one Narmadaprasad for about one and half months. From Mundai, the accused and prosecutrix arrived at Chinchkhed via Nagpur and Amravati and stayed in the house of the sister of the accused for about 4-5 days. Again from Chinchkhed, they went to Nagpur and stayed in the house of one friend of the accused for about 20 days. The accused was working as a labourer during this period. The accused and the prosecutrix then again came back to Chinchkhed, stayed there for
50

2008 Cr LJ 3549

one day and then went to Katsoor. They stayed at Katsoor at the house of maternal aunt of the accused for about 4-5 days. Then they came to Paratwada and therefrom went to village Talegaon where they stayed with the aunt of the accused. Then from Talegaon, they went to Delhi. But since the address of the person within whom they were going to stay at that place was not available, they returned back to Talegaon. During all these days, the accused performed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. While at Talegaon, the father of the prosecutrix and Rajapeth (Amravati) Police arrived there. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and she was taken back. Meanwhile, immediately on the next day of the occurrence, i.e. 22.4.1991, the father of the prosecutrix on coming to know the fact about kidnapping his daughter by the accused, had lodged the report in Police Station Rajapeth, Amravati, on the strength of which the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered as Crime No. 184 of 1991. Then on 28.8.1991, the prosecutrix and the accused were traced at Talegaon and accused was arrested. Prosecutrix was referred to Womens Hospital, Amravati, for her medical examination. The Medical Officer concerned examined her and found that her hymen was ruptured, she was habituated to sexual intercourse and she was carrying pregnancy of 4 to 6 weeks. On arrest of the accused, he was also referred for medical examination and the Medical Officer concerned opined that he was capable of committing sexual intercourse. The ossification test of the girl was also carried out and the opinion of the concerned Medical Officer was that the girl was aged about 14 to 16 years. The radiological examination of the accused was also performed wherein it was found that he was aged about 20 years. The necessary investigation was conducted and on completion of the same the accused stood charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The conclusions of the High Court were totally erroneous. The High Court came to presumptuous conclusion about the date of birth of the victim. The inevitable conclusion was that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable, and was set aside. The respondent was surrendered to custody to serve the remainder of the sentences.

5.6 Section 366 A:

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.

Sections 366 and 366 B are intended to punish the export and import of girls for prostitution. Section 366 A deals with procuration of minor girls from one part of India to another part. Section 366B makes it an offence to import into India from any country outside India below the age of twenty one years for the purpose of prostitution.51 Ingredients: This section requires two things: 1. inducing a girl under eighteen years to go from any place to do an act, 2. intention or knowledge that such girl will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with a person. An offence under this section is one of inducement with a particular object, and when after the inducement the offenders offer the girl to several persons a fresh offence is not committed at every fresh offer for sale. 1. Seduced: The word seduced is used in the ordinary sense of enticing or tempting irrespective of whether the minor girl has been previously compelled or has submitted to illicit intercourse.
51

Ratanlal DhirajLal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition) 2008, pg. 667.

2.

Age: It is necessary to prove the age of the prosecutrix to be below 18 years. In this case, the school certificate was considered to be the best evidence.

Predominantly, women and children are trafficked in for the sexual trade. The lack of employment in their native countries, force women and children into illegal migration, through migrant traffickers who offer package deals. Deceptive means such as false promises of careers in business, factories and households, are used to lure the women and children to being trafficked. They are inevitably then found imprisoned in brothels. In many cases, the women are lured to foreign countries in the hope of obtaining legitimate work, where they are then paid salaries and the poverty eventually forces them to resort to prostitution or to prostitute themselves under duress.52 The trafficking of children is usually by way of kidnapping or abduction, once abducted, threats and acts of violence are used to hold on to the victims. In Thailand for instance, brothel managers employ agents to collect photos of young girls as they go to school. The girls are then selected by the managers and upon selection the girls are ordered by them for the agents to kidnap. Aside from the kidnapping or abduction, Asian Countries have also faced the poverty driven selling of daughters by the impoverished families to agents for sometimes as low as US$200 a child, which children are then re-sold to traffickers. The sale of the girl child by her family, due to poverty, in turn places the financial burden of supporting her family on the girl child. Such trafficking is an example of non-violent trafficking of children. Also of large incidence is where the agents pose as potential husbands used to deceive the family of the girl child into believing the girl child and her rich husband will take over their financial burden, inevitably however, the girl child is then either sold to traffickers or forced into prostitution. However, one must remember that it benefits the traffickers to keep their victims in a foreign environment where not only are they

52

Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, Child Trafficking :The Recent emergence of the global issue, retrieved from http://www.ewla.org/wf_dl/paper_Devi.doc

vulnerable for having entered a country illegally, but are also disadvantaged because of their ignorance of the law, culture and language of that country.53 For women and girls additional protection is provided in the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. This act was amended in 1956 to provide for more severe penalties for offences involving children and minors. Under this act anyone who detains a woman or girl in a brothel or on any other premise with the intent that the female person shall have sexual intercourse with other persons is liable to punishment. To facilitate prosecution, certain circumstances are presumed to constitute illegal detainment. Thus if someone is found with a child in a brothel or a child that has been sexually assaulted is found in a brothel it is presumed that the child is illegally detained. Offenders are liable to a prison term from 7 years to life. These strict liability provisions allow for a higher possibility of curbing the offence, which would otherwise not be possible without the reversal of the burden of proof as has often happened in drug-related offences.54 Recent Case:

Manjappa v. State of Karnataka55,

On 03.04.1997, Hanumanthappa, father of the victim, lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter Shilpa, aged 13 years, was kidnapped by the appellants i.e. Vijay M.S.Balakrishna Madiwalar and Manjappa herein on 24.01.1997 at about 11.00 a.m. from his house and they had taken her to Bombay with an intention to force her to have illicit intercourse and thereafter, had sold the victim to Shanta at Bombay for Rs.5000/- for the purpose of prostitution and for immoral purposes. On the strength of the said complaint, Kumarapatnam Police registered a case in Crime No. 41 of 1997 and started investigation. On 24.04.1997, on receiving information about the victim, the Investigation Officer had gone to Bombay along with the panch witnesses and the complainant, traced out the girl and the appellants herein and returned to Kumarapatnam Police Station on 27.04.1997. The same day, the
53

Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, Child Trafficking :The Recent emergence of the global issue, retrieved from http://www.ewla.org/wf_dl/paper_Devi.doc 54 Ibid 55 (2010) IV Cr.L.J. 4729 (s.c.)

statement of the victim Shilpa was recorded and she was sent to the C.G. Hospital Davanagere for medical examination. The appellants herein and Shanta were arrested on 27.04.1997 and charged for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with 34 I.P.C. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case and marked several documents. The session judge convicted the Shanta and Madiwalar but acquitted the Manjappa for section 366-A, 372 and 373 r/w 34 of IPC. In appeal by state in high court the sentence of Shanta and Madiwalar was increased to 7 year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and convicted Manjappa with same. The supreme court confirmed the sentence of high court and rejected the appeal of Madiwalar And Manjappa for reduction of sentence.

5.7. Section 366B:

Importation of girl from foreign country:Whoever imports into India from any country outside India 3or from the State of Jammu and Kashmir any girl under the age of twenty-one 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 also be liable to fine. The Select Committee in their Report observed: the case of girls imported from a foreign country we propose to deal with by the insertion of a new section 366 B in the Code. We are unanimously of opinion that the requirements of the Convention will be substantially met by penalizing the importation of girls from a foreign country. At the same time we have so worded the clause as to prevent its being made a dead-letter by the adoption of the course of

importing the girl first into an Indian State.56 After the coming into force of the Constitution of India this section was amended to bring it in accord with the changed circumstances.57

5.8 Section 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 subject to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to 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.

5.9 Section 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 dad 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 principal offender but to those persons who assist him in concealing any person who has been kidnapped. A kidnapper cannot be convicted under this section.58 Ingredients of this section:
56 57

Gazette of India, dated February 10, 1923, Part V, p.79 B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Eastern Book Company,Lucknow, 2nd Edition, 2006 at p.536 58 Fiyaz Ahmed v. State of Bihar, 1990 Cr LJ 2241

1. The person in question has been kidnapped 2. The accused knew that the said person had been kidnapped. 3. The accused having such knowledge wrongfully conceals or confines the person concerned. Apart from direct evidence these ingredients can be proved by facts and circumstances of a particular case.59 In Saroj Kumari case60 the appellant was found in possession of a newborn child. On asking, no explanation was given by her. She pretended to conceal the child and claim it to be hers. It was a fact that she had not delivered in the recent past. Since all the ingredients were established she was held to be guilty of the offence. Knowledge of the assailant is the most important factor here. For all practical and legal purposes, knowledge means the state of mind entertained by a person with regard to existing facts which he has himself observed, or the existence of which has been communicated to him by a person he has no reason to doubt.61

5.10 Section 369:

Kidnapping or abducting child less than 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.

This section is intended to protect enticing away of children from their parents in order to steal ornaments from the children. The offence being a serious one, punishment is 7 years imprisonment and fine. It may however be noted that the offence under 363 is

59 60

Saroj Kumari, 1973 Cr LJ 267 (1973) 3 SCC 669 61 B.M Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow,2nd Edition, 2006,p.537.

included in this section.62 The offence is cognizable, non bailable, not compoundable and triable by a first class Magistrate.

62

B.M Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow,2nd Edition, 2006,p.537.

6. SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR

Section 370 - Whoever imports, export, removes, buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains against his will any person as slave, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 371 - Whoever habitually imports, exports, removes, buys, sells, traffics or deals in slaves, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life] or with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding the years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 372 - Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of any 1[person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be] employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to fine. Explanation I When a female under the age of eighteen years sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution. Explanation II For the purposes of this section "illicit intercourse" means sexual intercourse between persons not united by marriage or by any union or tie which, though not amounting to a marriage, is recognised by the personal law or custom of the community to which they belong or, where they belong to different communities, of both such communities, as constituting between them a quasi -marital relation.

7. THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956

With a view to implement International Convention signed at New York on the 9 th May, 1950, the suppression of immoral traffic in woman and girls bill, 1950 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on the 20th December, 1954, by the then Minister K.N. Katju. In 1950 the Government of India ratified an International Convention for the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of others. Under Article 23 of the Convention, traffic in human beings is prohibited and any contravention of the prohibition is an offence punishable by law. Under Article 35 such a law has to be passed by Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of the Constitution. Legislation on the subject of suppression of immoral traffic does exist in a few States but the laws are neither uniform nor do they go far enough. In the remaining States there is no bar on the subject at all. In the circumstances it is necessary and desirable that a Central law should be passed which will not only secure uniformity but also would be sufficiently deterrent for the purpose. But a special feature of the Bill is that it provides that no person or authority other than the State Government shall establish or maintain any protective home except under a license issued by the State Government. This will check the establishment of homes which are really dens for prostitution63 The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2006 amends the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to combat trafficking and sexual exploitation for commercial purposes. The Bill deletes provisions that analyze prostitutes for soliciting clients. It analyzes any person visiting a brothel for the purpose of sexual exploitation of trafficked victims. All offences listed in the Bill would be tried in camera, i.e., the public would be excluded from attending the trial. While prostitution is not an offence, practicing it in a brothel or within 200 m of any public place is illegal. There seems to be a lack of clarity on whether prostitution ought to be a legitimate way of earning a living if entered into
63

http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact1.htm,

by choice. Penalizing clients who visit prostitutes could drive this sector underground, preventing legal channels of support to victims of trafficking. This Bill punishes trafficking for the purpose of prostitution. Trafficking for other purposes (such as bonded labor and domestic work) is not covered by the Bill. The Bill aims to combat trafficking in persons for sexual exploitation. It does not prohibit prostitution. It addresses the issue of trafficking through both supply side (by measures to punish traffickers) and demand side (penalties for clients) mechanisms. There are three issues that need to be considered. First, whether prostitution ought to be a legitimate way of earning a living if the person enters or stays in the profession out of choice. Second, whether the demand side mechanism of punishing clients would be the best way to tackle trafficking. Third, whether trafficking in persons for purposes other than sexual exploitation would be analyzes. These issues are discussed below.64

7.1 Legality of prostitution:

The Bill defines prostitution as sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes and a brothel as any house or place which is used for purposes of sexual exploitation for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes. Although the Bill does not analyze an individual if he is in prostitution for his own profit, it analyzes prostitution if carried on in a brothel or from any public place within 200 meters of an educational institution, place of religious worship, hotel, hospital, nursing home or any public place notified by the Commissioner of Police or Magistrate. Such clauses, while technically not prohibiting prostitution, make it almost impossible for a person to operate as a prostitute. Thus, the Bill lacks clarity on whether prostitution ought to be a legitimate way of earning a living if the person enters or stays in the profession out of choice.65

7.2 Punishing Clients:

64 65

www.indiatogether.org/2006/oct/law-immoral.htm, Ibid

The Bill seeks to analyze any person who visits a brothel for the purpose of sexual exploitation of a trafficked victim. The issues that arise out of such a provision are as follows. It would be difficult for a person visiting a brothel to distinguish between a trafficked person and a non-trafficked person. A person is analyzes only if he sexually exploits a trafficked victim. If the victim is not trafficked, the client would not be analyzes. Any person visiting or found in a brothel can be analyzes if the purpose of the visit is sexual exploitation of a trafficked victim. However, as the term sexual exploitation is not defined in the Bill, it could lead to harassment of every person who visits a brothel irrespective of the object of his visit. International experience suggests that the provision to analyze clients may not be an effective way to curb sexual exploitation. For example, Sweden views prostitution as an aspect of male violence against women and children and analyzes the act of purchasing sexual services. There is a view that this provision has moved the trade underground.

7.3 Trafficking Limited To Prostitution:

India is a signatory to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. This Protocol defines trafficking in persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. 66

8. STATISTICS 2006 2008

66

www.indiatogether.org/2006/oct/law-immoral.htm,

There has been a significant rise in kidnapping cases owing to the rising prosperity together with inadequate law enforcement. In 2006, the latest period for which data is available, the number of reported abductions jumped 52 percent to 23,991, from 15,750 in 2005, ranking India sixth among 10 countries with the worst record for kidnappings, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number of kidnappings at 3,318 in 2006, followed by Bihar and Andhra Pradesh at 2,619 and 2,030, respectively. The rise in kidnapping incidents comes at a time when domestic and overseas companies are expanding in the hinterland, where the law enforcement machinery is often not able to provide adequate protection to their employees. Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh (997) have accounted for 24.8, 15.4, 12.0 and 6.7 per cent of total crimes respectively against children at the national level. Procuration of Minor Girls (Sec. 366A IPC) 205 cases were reported in the year 2008 as compared to 145 such cases in 2007, accounting for 29.3% increase over 2007. Andhra Pradesh has reported 48 such cases indicating a share of 33.1 percent at national level. In absolute numbers, these cases registered a fall to 48 against 60 in 2007 in case of Andhra Pradesh and 9 in 2008 from 32 in 2007 in Uttaranchal. A minor increase of 0.1 per cent was noticed in Kerala (20 cases in 2007 increased to 21 cases in 2008). 28 cases of Buying of girls and 50 cases of Selling of girls for Prostitution were reported in the country during 2007 against 21 and 19 such cases respectively in 2008. Andhra Pradesh & Delhi with 32.1% each along with Maharashtra 21.4 accounted for 85.6% (24 cases) of total cases of Buying of Girls and West Bengal has accounted for 88.0% (44 cases) of the total cases of Selling of Girls for Prostitution reported in the country. Incidence of kidnapping and abduction of women and girls recorded an increase of 9.4% from 2004 to 2008.67 There has been a significant rise in kidnapping cases owing to the rising prosperity together with inadequate law enforcement. In 2006, the number of reported abductions jumped 52 percent to 23,991, from 15,750 in 2005, ranking India sixth among 10

67

http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2007/cii-2007/CHAP6.pdf,

countries with the worst record for kidnappings, according to the National Crime Records Bureau.

2009-2011
The following table can be taken into account to understand the level of crime of kidnapping and abduction in India during the period of 2008-2011 in all India level, and in states of Haryana, Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh. State and Year Haryana Punjab Chandigarh India 2009 916 692 40 33860 2010 963 789 38 38440 2011 959 681 58 44664

In 2011 total no. of cases under Indian Penal Code relating to offence of Kidnapping and abduction were 44664 which amounted to 1.9 percent of total crimes under Indian Penal Code. Out of these in 2011, Kidnapping and abduction of women and girls amounted to 35565 which was 1.5 percent of total no. of crimes in Indian Penal Code. Rate of crime was 3.7 percent for kidnapping and abduction whereas chargesheeting rate and convictional rate was 70.5 percent and 27.3 percent respectively.68 Further the following table can be very helpful in understanding and comparing the data of states of Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh regarding Kidnapping and Abduction during the year of 201169: State/U T Cases ed during the
68

No. of withdraw n by the govt.

Cases not Cases investigat declar ed or in which ed false

Total cases where chargsh eet laid

Cases ed

Cases d and dischar ged

Cases pendi ng Trial at the

Report cases

convict acquitte

investigat on

http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/figure%20at%20a%20glance.pdf and http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2007/cii-2007/CHAP6.pdf 69 http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/Additional%20table%20cii%202011/Cases%20registered%20and %20their%20disposal%20under%20IPC%20crimes%20during%20-%202011%20final.xls

year

during ion

ion was

accou nt of mista ke of fact

and final report submitt ed 432 60 10 4001 72 176 14 10680

end of year

Investigat refused

Haryana Punjab Chandig arh India

959 681 58 44664

0 0 0 197

0 0 0 192

or law 300 625 174 376 15 32 966 32388

360 1357 50 9507 4

CONCLUSION
Essential to combating trafficking of children is the co-operation between the legal systems, the government bodies and the non-government bodies around the globe. The passing of deterrent laws for the trafficker, as opposed to the victim is a step towards reducing the occurrence of trafficking in children, however one must bear in mind that the criminal mind will always find its ways to circumvent the laws passed. Most societies are plagued by the malady of child trafficking, making it today a global phenomenon yet it remains somewhat unknown. The exact magnitude of the offence is not represented in terms of data and statistics and the exact modes of perpetration are still oblivion. There is lack of awareness amongst citizens possibly due to the chauvinism of state authorities to disclose ills that affect national dignity and recklessness. Co-operation amongst countries need to be fostered to counter this phenomenon, for instance by uniformity in penal provisions between countries which would be a welcome consideration to reciprocal enforcement of protection and prevention in trafficking which is mainly a cross-border crime. This uniformity can be achieved through ratification of international instruments and national implementation of these international humanitarian instruments relating to trafficking of children.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Gandhi B.M, Indian Penal Code, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2nd Edition, 2006. 2. DhirajLal Ratanlal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13th Edition (Reprint 2004 Edition), 2008. 3. Singh K.K and Bagga R., Indian Penal Code, The Law Book Company, Allahabad, 2nd edition, 1994 4. Mishra S.N., Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications, Allahabad,14th Edition. 2006. 5. Basu N.D., Commentary on Indian Penal Code ed. 10 th, vol. 2, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2007 6. Sarvaria SK, RA Nelsons Indian Penal Code ed. 9th , Vol. 3, LexisNexis Butterworths Publications, New Delhi 7. Walker, Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford Publications, New Delhi, 20th Edition, 1980,

Articles Referred:
1. Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, Child Trafficking :The Recent emergence of the global issue 2. Van Bueren ,The International Law on the Rights of a Child, Kluwer 1989

ONLINE SOURCES:
1. http://www.man.org.np/mdcampus/ppt/17-Kidnapping%20and%20extortionRanendra%20Man.ppt. 2. http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/oct/law-immoral.htm. 3. http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact1.htm. 4. http://www.manupatra.com.
5.

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S366B.htm.

6. http://www.ewla.org/wf_dl/paper_Devi.doc. 7. http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2007/cii-2007/CHAP6.pdf. 8. http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/Additional%20table%20cii%202011/Cases %20registered%20and%20their%20disposal%20under%20IPC%20crimes %20during%20-%202011%20final.xls 9. http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2007/cii-2007/CHAP6.pdf 10. http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/figure%20at%20a%20glance.pdf

Other References:
1. 2. Gazette of India, dated February 10, 1923, Part V Blacks law Dictionary

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 2. Kidnapping 1 2

3. Abduction 4. Difference between kidnapping and abduction 5. Aggravated forms of kidnapping and abduction 6. Slavery and Forced Labour 7. The Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956 8. Statistics 9. Conclusion 10. Bibliography 11. Recent Cases

9 11 12 32 33 36 39 40 17, 22, 27

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my subject teacher Dr. Pushpinder for her support and cooperation to me for preparation of this project. Also, I would like to thank Director, UILS for providing such an environment in which I was able to complete my project easily. Also, I am very thankful to library staff, UILS for providing me all the relevant material easily. Lastly, friends and family is thanked by me for their help.

Project Report on Indian Economy

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT (FDI) AND GROWTH OF MULTINATIONAL

CORPORATIONS (MNCs) IN INDIA

Submitted To:

Submitted By: Dinesh Kumar Anand

Prof. UILS

20/10, Section A 6th sem, UILS, Panjab University