Offense of Kidnapping and Abduction

• Offences

Despite the fact that Indian laws ban abduction and kidnapping, more than 100,000 kidnapping and abduction instances have been reported in India since 2005. People have continued to take advantage of youngsters’ vulnerable age to abduct, exploit, and force them to commit heinous deeds. Such offences are an affront to citizens’ rights and freedom, and they must be avoided.

These offences are punishable under sections 359 to 374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• Definition and section
• Kidnapping

Kidnapping is defined as the seizing of a person against their will using force, threat, or deception. Kidnappings are usually carried out to obtain a ransom, or for political or other reasons. Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code divides kidnapping into two types, which are further specified in Sections 360 and 361. Let’s take a closer look at these sections.

Kidnapping has two categories, according to Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code:

1. kidnapping from India, and

2. kidnapping from legitimate guardianship.

• Abduction

Abduction is defined in Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code. It states that whenever a person forces or convinces another person to leave a particular location, the offence of abduction has been committed.

Thus, abduction is a crime in which a person is dragged from one location to another against his or her will, either by coercion or deception.

• Punishment with sections
• Punishment for Kidnapping (Section 363, IPC)

Both types of kidnapping are punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (Kidnapping from India and Kidnapping from lawful guardianship).

The following is the punishment outlined in this section:

Fine and imprisonment of either type, which can last up to seven years.

In the Indian Penal Code, imprisonment for either period refers to one of two punishments:

1. Idle Imprisonment: This indicates that the prisoner is not compelled to conduct any hard labour throughout his or her confinement.

2. Strict Imprisonment: This indicates that the prisoner must work hard during his or her confinement.

• Punishment for Abduction

The IPC does not include a general punishment for abduction because it is a supplementary offence. Rather, specific types of abduction are dealt with under separate parts of the IPC.

• Case briefs
• State of Haryana v. Raja Ram[1]:

Raja Ram had attempted to entice a 14-year-old girl into moving in with him. When the girl’s father banned him from visiting their home, he began sending her messages through the respondent.

The reply approached the girl one day and invited her to his home, subsequently sending his daughter to bring her. The respondent advised her to meet him at his place at midnight so she could be escorted to Raja Ram.

He was found guilty by the trial court, but acquitted by the Supreme Court.

• Section 361 is intended to protect minor children from being seduced for improper purposes and to protect the rights and privileges of guardians who have custody of them;

• A child’s consent is completely irrelevant; only the guardian’s consent is relevant in determining whether the offence was committed or not.

• According to the Section, “taking” can occur not only by fraud or force, but also through persuasion on the part of the accused, resulting in the minor’s consent to be taken away from his or her legitimate guardian. The respondent was found guilty under section 361 in this case because it was the respondent’s actions that led the prosecutrix to leave her father’s custody, despite her father’s desires.

• Netra Pal vs The State (Nct of Delhi)[2]

Master Tanu Johia, a 6-year-old boy, knew the appellant Netra Pal. He had taken the child and other boys on a fun trip in a Rickshaw one day. He didn’t drop off Tanu when he dropped off the other boys. His mother had hoped that Netra Pal would return with her son in the near future. She informed his father when he did not return. He looked for him in the neighbourhood where they live but couldn’t find him, so he filed a police report.

The police proceeded to the appellant’s hamlet and discovered him and the child there. He was captured, and a letter demanding a ransom of Rs. 50,000 was discovered in his possession.

The court ruled that the mere recovery of a letter allegedly written by the appellant demanding Rs. 50000 for the child’s safety and return is insufficient to cover “to pay the ransom.” A kidnapper’s demand is a necessary component of the crime since demand must be communicated in order for the ransom to be paid.

---

[1] State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, AIR 1973 SC 819

[2] Netra Pal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) 91 (2001) DLT 40