NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW RANCHI

KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

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

LAW OF CRIME
SUBMITTED BY: ANIRUDH PRATAP CHANDRA (SEMESTER: IV)
SECTION B, ROLL NO. 1158

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1|Page

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

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

Anirudh Pratap Chandra

2|Page



 DECLARATION

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

Anirudh Pratap Chandra

3|Page

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP ................................................................8

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

CHAPTER 2: ABDUCTION ........................................................................................................13

DISTINCTION BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION ..........................................15

CHAPTER 3: SPECIFIC NATURE OF KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION ............................16

KIDNAPPING OF MAIMING FOR BEGGING .....................................................................16

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING IN ORDER TO MURDER................................................17

KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM ................................................................................................18

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO SECRET AND WRONGFUL ..........19

CONFINEMENT ......................................................................................................................19

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO COMPEL HER MARRIAGE .................19

PROCURATION OF MINOR GIRL ........................................................................................20

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING TO SUBJECT PERSON TO GRIEVOUS HURT ............22

WRONGFULLY CONCEALING OR KEEPING IN CONFINEMENT KIDNAPPED OR ...22

ABDUCTED PERSON .............................................................................................................22

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING CHILD UNDER TEN YEARS WITH INTENT TO ........23

STEAL FORM ITS PERSON ...................................................................................................23

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................23

BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................................25

4|Page

 INTRODUCTION

Kidnapping or Abduction in any form curtails from the liberty of an individual. Especially, it
impinges the right to life guaranteed under art 21 of the Constitution of India and human rights.
It causes terror in the mind of the people and has deleterious effect on 5ivilized society1. Hence
why the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with these offences specifically from S. 359 to S. 369.

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

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

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

5|Page

 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

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

METHODOLOGY

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

MODE OF CITATION

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

6|Page

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

KIDNAPPING FROM INDIA

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

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

Hence the essential ingredients to fulfill this section is:

(a) taking any person beyond the limits of India

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

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

2 Indian Penal Code, 1860

3 Ibid

7|Page

 KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence, this section has four essentials:

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

(b) such minor should under 16 years of age, if a male, and 18 years of age, if a female
(c) the taking and enticing must be done out of the keeping of the lawful guardian

4 Indian Penal Code, 1860

8|Page

 (d) such taking or enticing must be done without the consent of the lawful guardian

Taking and Enticing

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

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

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

9|Page

 Raja Ram under S. 3668. The question before the supreme court was whether Raja Ram
could said to have ‘taken’ the prosecutrix, and since she was willing to be taken out of
the keeping of the lawful guardian, would be sufficient to attract the section?
The SC here observed that, “Persuasion by the accused, which creates willingness on the
part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient
to attract the section.”

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

Enticing

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

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

8 Ibid
9State v. Rajayyan (1996) CrLJ 145 (Ker); Gaurish v. State of Maharashta (1997) CrLJ 1018 (Bom.); Deep Chand
@
Dipu v. State (National Capital Territory, Delhi) (2001) CrLJ 463 (Del)
10 Biswanath Mallick v State of Orissa, 1995 Cr LJ 1416 (Ori)
11 Thakorlal D Vadgama v. state of Gujarat AIR 1973 SC 2313, (1973) CrLJ 1541 (SC)

Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120 : AIR 2004 SC2472 : 2004 Cr LJ 2553 13
12
AIR 1973 SC 819 CrLJ 651 (SC)

10 | P a g e

 Out of Keeping of Lawful Guardian

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

Ram.13 The court observed that the word ‘keeping’, in the context, cannotes the idea of charge,
protection, maintenance and control. The court compared it with the language used in English

Statues, where the expression used was ‘taken out of the possession’ and not ‘out of the keeping’.
The difference in the language between English statues and this section only goes to show that s
361 was designed to protect the scared right of the guardians with respect of their minor wards.

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

Age of Minor

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

PUNISHMENT FOR KIDNAPPING

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

In Chandrakala v. Vipin menon14, the supreme court declined to convict the father, who was
accused of kidnapping his minor daughter who was living with her maternal grandfather due to

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

11 | P a g e

 strained relationship between her parents, on the ground that the accused was the natural
guardian of the child.

12 | P a g e



 CHAPTER 2: ABDUCTION

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

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

The essential ingredients of this section are:

(a) Forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 Indian Penal Code, 1860

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

13 | P a g e

 By Force

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

Deceitful Means

Under this section, inducing a person by deceitful means to go from any place is also an offence.

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

To go from any place

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

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

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

14 | P a g e

 DISTINCTION BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

KIDNAPPING ABDUCTION
Kidnapping from guardianship is committed Abduction may be in respect of any person.
only in respect of a minor or a person of
unsound mind.

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

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

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

Kidnapping from guardianship is a substantive Abduction will be an offence only if done

offence
with intents specified in the sections 364, 365,
366,

15 | P a g e

 CHAPTER 3: SPECIFIC NATURE OF KIDNAPPING AND

ABDUCTION

KIDNAPPING OF MAIMING FOR BEGGING

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

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

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

(4) In this section,-

(a) Begging means

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

16 | P a g e

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

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING IN ORDER TO MURDER

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

Illustrations

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

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

This section will apply if person has been abducted with intention that he be murdered.23 The
actual murder of the person is not required. It is sufficient that there was abduction with the
intent to murder.24

23Upendra Nath v. Emperor AIR 1940 Cal 561; Paras Nath Mani Tipathi v. State (2000) CrLJ 3882 (All); Subhash
Chandra Panda v. State (2001) CrLJ 4108 (Ori).
24 State of west Bengal v. Mir Mohmad Omar AIR 2000 SC 2998, (2000) 8 SCC 382.

17 | P a g e

 KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM

364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. —Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a
person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to
such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be
put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or
[any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do or
abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

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

In Netra Pal v. State (National capital Territory of Delhi),25 the Delhi High Court, in set of
peculiar facts, delved into some key words and ambit of S. 364A of the IPC. The raiding party
recovered from the accused, the kidnapped child and a letter demanding ransom. He had neither
posted the letter nor personally contracted the family of the child for three days after kidnapping
till he was arrested. The high court held that mere intention to demand is translated into action of
the accused by communicating his demand to the person concerned. Unless the price of retrieval
or rescue is made, the question to pay ransom does not arise as the words ‘to pay’ warrant setting
the demand for payment in motion. The court, therefore, declined to convict the accused for
kidnapping for ransom as he, by keeping his letter of demand with him only, did not convey his
demand for ransom to release the child.

25 (2001) CrLJ 1669 (Del).

18 | P a g e

 KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO SECRET AND WRONGFUL

CONFINEMENT

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

This section comes into play when a person kidnaps or abducts another with intention to secretly
and wrongfully confine him.26 Such an intention of the kidnapper or abductor has to be judged
from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.27

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO COMPEL HER MARRIAGE

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

Mere abduction does not warrant S. 366. It comes into operation only when the kidnapper or
abductor abducts her for the purpose mentioned therein.28 Even subsequent intent or act of

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

19 | P a g e

 intercourse with kidnapped or abducted girl cannot bring in the case within the preview of S.
366, if such an intent was absent at the time when the accused enticed the girl.29 ‘Abduction’
under this section becomes punishable if the victim had been carried of illegally by ‘force’ or
‘deception’ from one place to another place.30 This section is not directed against seduction under
coercion or under circumstances when she is entirely in the power of the seducer and when her
consent would be nothing more than a mere submission to the will of the seducer. Abduction for
forcible sexual intercourse or forcible marriage, or seduction for illicit intercourse are the main
ingredients of this section. The essence of crime is compulsion.31 Seduction in this section means
not merely inducement to submit to sexual intercourse for the first time, but induces subsequent
illicit sexual intercourse as well.32 However, in the case of a woman who habitually carries on
the profession of a prostitute, the essential elements of seduction are ruled out and hence the
offence under S. 366 cannot be committed in connection with such a women.33

PROCURATION OF MINOR GIRL

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

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

29 Dalchand v. State of Uttar Pradesh

30 Rajinder v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 721.
31 Jinish Lal v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 605.
32Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 1908 (1963) 1 Cr LJ 16 (SC); Kuldeep K Mahato v. State of Bihar
AIR 1998 SC 2694,(1998) 6 SCC 420; Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 2724 , (1998) 7 SCC 324.
33 Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 1908 (1963) 1 Cr LJ 16 SC

20 | P a g e

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

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

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

37.Keasl Mal v. Emperor AIR 1932 Lah 555

38.5 State of Bombay v. Gopichand Fattulmal AIR 1961 Bom 282, (1960) 63 Bom LR 408; Ramesh v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 1908.
seduced to illicit intercourse with someone other than himself.34 In the absence of any proof
disclosing coercion or inducement by the accused, the accuse would be acquitted of charges
under S. 366A.40 Section 366-B makes it an offence to import a girl under the specified age from
any foreign country or the state of Jammu & Kashmir with intent or knowledge that she would
be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.35

34Manik Molla v. Emperor AIR 1945 Cal 432; Ganga Dayal Singh v. State of Bihar Air 1994 Sc 859, 1994 CrLJ
951 SC; Mahesha Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan (1999) CrLJ 4625 (Raj); Ranjeet Singh v. State of Bihar (2000) CrLJ
2574 (Pat); Krishna Mohan Thakur v. State of Bihar (2000) CrLJ 1898 (Pat.) 40 7 Jinish Lal Sah v. State of Bihar
(2003) 1 SCC 605.
35 Ramjilal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1951 Raj 33

21 | P a g e

 KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING TO SUBJECT PERSON TO GRIEVOUS HURT

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

In Dharshan Singh v. State of Punjab36, the Supreme Court convicted the accused under s 367 for
abduction the victim and mercilessly beating him.

WRONGFULLY CONCEALING OR KEEPING IN CONFINEMENT KIDNAPPED OR

ABDUCTED PERSON

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

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

This section does not apply to the perpetrator of the offence of kidnapping or abduction but to his
accomplice who knowingly conceals the kidnapping or abducted person.37

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

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

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

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

36 (1994) CrLJ 226 (SC)

37Sohan Singh v. Emperor AIR 1929 Lah 180; Emperor v. Zamir 1932 oudh 28; Francis Hector v. Emperor AIR
1937 All 182; Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhaya Pradesh 1967 MPLJ 477.

22 | P a g e

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

In Smt Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh38, the accused had been charged of the offence of
stealing a new born child from its mother’s delivery bed in the maternity hospital. The child was
found in the bedroom of the accused, although she had not given birth to any new born child.
The Supreme Court upheld her conviction under S. 368, holding that under the circumstances,
the interference of concealment and guilt concurrently drawn by the courts below were
justifiable and correct.

KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING CHILD UNDER TEN YEARS WITH INTENT TO

STEAL FORM ITS PERSON

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

38 AIR 1973 SC 201 (1973) 1 SCJ 682, (1973) CrLJ 267 SC.

23 | P a g e

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

24 | P a g e



 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

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

25 | P a g e