S. Vardarajan v.

State of Madras

Facts: A minor girl was living with her father and studying in a college.
She had become friendly with the appellant whom she wanted to marry.
However, her father did not approve of it and took her to the house of a
relative and left her there so that for some time she was kept as far away
from the accused as possible. However, on the next day, she
telephoned the appellant asking him to meet her. Then they went to the
registrar’s office and got registered an agreement to marry. The
appellant was convicted under Section 363 and his appeal to the High
Court was dismissed. The matter went to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the accused can be said to have “taken” her away from
the keeping of her guardian?

Decision: The Court acquitted the appellant on the grounds that there
was no evidence that she had left the house at the instance of the
appellant. She had herself decided to marry him as at no time the
appellant used force. She was on the verge of attaining the majority.
Thus, she was capable of thinking for herself.

Thakorlal Vadgama v. State of Madras

Facts: The appellant had come into contact with the family of Mohini, a
minor girl. He developed a relationship with them. He also presented
Mohini with various articles as gifts. At Mount Abu, he was actually found
by the side of Mohini in her bed by Mohini’s mother. At this, the Mohini’s
parents rebuked her for being so intimate with the accused. But the
accused swore that he always treated Mohini as his own daughter.
Thereafter, the accused continued to meet Mohini secretly and
exchanged letters. In her letters, Mohini wrote incidents of rebuking by
her mother and beating. The appellant gave an indication that he would
keep her with him permanently. At this, she left her father’s house and
went to the appellant’s factory. He kept her in the garage of his
bungalow for two days. The trial court and the high court convicted the
accused under Sec.363 of IPC and Sec.366 of IPC respectively. The
accused made an appeal to Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether the accused kidnap Mohini from lawful guardianship?
Whether he did do so with an intention contemplated by Sec.366 of IPC?

Decision: The court held that the accused participated in the formation
of the girl’s intention and resolve to leave her parent’s house. The
inducements made by the accused operated on the girl’s mind to stay in
his house and do so as he told her to do. The court held that Mohini was
kidnapped from lawful guardianship, with an intention contemplated by
Sec.366 of IPC. The appeal was thus dismissed.

State of Haryana v. Raja Ram

Facts: One Jainarain, a quack of the village, while rendering medical aid
to the girl’s father at her house became intimate with the girl and tried to
seduce her. He persuaded her to accompany him, promising to give her
good clothes, food, and everything she wanted. He then asked Raja
Ram to persuade and bring her to a pre-arranged place at night. He did
according to the pre-arranged plan.

The trial court convicted both accused under Sec.366. The High Court
maintained the conviction against Jainarain but acquitted the accused on
the ground that the girl left the house of her own free will.

Decision: The Supreme Court while considering the meaning and scope
of Sec.361 said that the object of this section seems as much to protect
the minor children…..as to protect the rights and privileges of the
guardians…. The words “takes or entices……out of the keeping of the
lawful guardian” in Sec.361 are significant.

In the present case, facts clearly establish the guilt of the accused. He
actively participated in the formation of her intention to leave the house.
Her consent or willingness to accompany the accused would be
immaterial.

R v. Prince

Facts: Henry Prince was accused of abducting a 14-year-old girl, Annie

Philips, having believed her to be 18 years old. Such an act was at that
time in violation of the article or section 55 of the relevant statute law,
regarding minors. Prince argued that he had made a reasonable mistake
in regard to Phillips’s age.

Decision: The Court held that this was a bad argument. Her real age
must be taken into consideration. The taking must be from the lawful
guardian. Moving with the girl is important and it completes the offence.

R v. D

It held that the offence of kidnapping cannot be committed by a parent

who takes away his unmarried minor child. However, a parent may be
guilty of kidnapping his child if that child had attained majority or has
lawfully married under that age since in either case, the child has passed
out of the possession of his parents.

Vipin Menon v. State

It was held that the father, in the absence of divestment of right of

guardianship, cannot be guilty of kidnapping his minor child. Where a
minor daughter was in her mother’s custody under the court’s order (the
mother had obtained a divorce), and the father forcibly removed the
daughter from a school, the father was held guilty of kidnapping the
daughter.

Ganga Dayal Singh v. State of Bihar

Facts: P.W. 4 Hardeo Thakur is the father of the minor girl. He and the
appellant were doing potato business. On the previous night, namely,
the intervening night of 11th and 12th September 1969, the appellant
came to the house of P.W. 4 and the next morning he abducted the
minor girl. She was seen being taken away by one of the witnesses
whose evidence was recorded in the Committal Court. But before the
trial was taken up, he died. Therefore, his evidence was brought on
record under Section 288 of the old Criminal Procedure Code. Apart
from that, other witnesses have been examined to establish the
circumstances. Five circumstances have been established as against
the appellant. The appellant and the complainant were together doing
potato business, the accused used to go to the house of the
complainant, in the eventful night, the appellant stayed at the house of
the complainant; in the morning the appellant was seen taking the minor
girl and thereafter the minor girl disappeared and her whereabouts are
not known.

Decision: The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 366,
Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge
for kidnapping a minor girl Asha Kumari aged 15 years on September
12, 1969, from Mahalla Maripur in Muzaffarpur town. He was sentenced
to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000
and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both
sentences were directed to run concurrently. The High Court confirmed
the same.

Re: Goorroodoss Rajbunsee

A person carried off, without the consent of her father, a girl to whom he
was betrothed by her father because the father suddenly changed his
mind and broke off the engagement, it was held that he was guilty of
kidnapping.