Assignment Ipc
Assignment Ipc
The word kidnapping have been derived from the word kid‘meaning child and napping‘to steal.
Thus kidnapping literally means child- stealing. And the word kidnapper originally (during the
17th Century) meant to signify one who stole children and others to provide servants and
At common law the term kidnapping consists of stealing and carrying away, or secreting any
persons, whether in the same country, or by sending him away from his own country into some
other, or to parts beyond the seas whereby he is deprived of the friendly assistance of the laws
therefore, an offence in which all the elements of that offence are necessarily present. It is
however, confinement of such a serious form that the code treats it as distinct offence. But
kidnapping does not include the offence of wrongful confinement or keeping in confinement
of a kidnapped person.2
1
Law Commission of India, 42nd Report on IPC, 1971, p. 266
2
Adhik V. Emperor, AIR 1947 poat 17
1|Page
KIDNAPPING
Section 360 of the Indian Penal Code makes the provision for kidnapping from India and
Section 363 defines the punishment for the offence. Under this section the offence is complete,
the moment a person is taken outside the geographical territory of India without that person’s
consent or his guardian’s consent. But the offence would not be complete until the person
actually reaches not only a foreign territory but to the destination as well. The act becomes
criminal only when the person is conveyed without his consent. It is that which gives to the act
its essential element of criminality. The taking away of a person outside the territory of India
is made a separate offence because it has the effect of removing a person from the jurisdiction
2. Without the consent of that person or of someone legally authorize to consent on behalf
of that person.
The offence under the section may be committed in respect of any person male or female,
Conveying without consent- The word convey literally means simply going on a journey but
in popular parlance, it now means carrying a person to his destination. Thus the offence would
2|Page
not be complete until the person actually reaches not only a foreign territory but to his
destination as well. Mere conveying of a person from one place to another is not criminal. The
act becomes criminal if he conveyed without his consent. It is that which gives to the act the
including him to give his consent by fraud or deception, similarly a consent loses its essential
element if it is given under fear or duress in which case it is submission and not consent.
Section 361 of IPC makes kidnapping from lawful guardianship of a minor under sixteen years
of age, if a male, and under eighteen years of age, if a female, an offence. The section also
protects a person of unsound mind from being kidnapped from the lawful curator.
INGREDIENTS:
The consent of the minor, who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial, it is only the guardian’s
consent which takes the case out of its purview. Nor it is necessary that the taking or enticing
must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud. Persuasion by the accused person
which creates willingness on the part of the minor to taken out of the keeping of lawful guardian
3|Page
In the case of Thakori Lal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat, the accused was charged for
kidnapping a minor girl, Mohini, below 15 years of age from the lawful guardianship of her
father under Section 361, IPC. It was established that the accused had at an earlier stage
encouraging suggestion, that he would give her shelter. Holding the accused liable for
kidnapping under section 363, IPC the Supreme Court said, that the mere circumstances that
his act was not the immediate cause of her leaving her parental home or guardian’s custody
would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him from the offence of kidnapping.
In S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, 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’ her out of the lawful
guardianship of her parents, as 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.
2) Such minor must be under 16 years of age, if a male, or under 18 years of age, if a female;
3) Taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person
of unsound mind;
Section 361 makes the taking or enticing of any minor person or person of unsound mind ‘out
“Keeping” as observed in the case of State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, in the context, connotes
the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control; further the guardian’s charge and
control appear to be compatible with the independence of action and movement in the minor,
the guardian’s protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity arises.
4|Page
4) Taking or enticing must be without the consent of such guardian.
The term used in the IPC is ‘lawful guardian’ and not ‘legal guardian’. The term ‘lawful
guardian’ is much wider and general. It includes not only legal guardians but also such person
like a teacher, relatives etc., who are lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of a minor.
In the case of Chandrakala v. Vipin Menon, 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 strained relationship between her parents, on the ground that the accused
R v. Hibbert , the accused was charged under section 55 of the Offence Against the Person Act,
1861. The accused met a girl of 14 in the street, took her to another place where he seduced her
and left her where he had found her The girl was the custody of her father, but it was held that
in the absence of finding by the jury, that the prisoner was aware of this fact or had wilfully
abstained from inquiring about the guardianship of the girl, he must be acquitted.
R v. Prince was distinguished from R v. Hibbert on the ground that Hibbert did not Intend to
take the girl, nor did he abduct her out of anybody's possession, because he did not have actual
PUNISHMENT: The punishment for Kidnapping is prescribed under section 363 of the IPC
which calls for imprisonment which may extend to seven years along with a fine if the accused
is found guilty.
5|Page
CONCLUSION
Kidnapping as the word suggest is the act of stealing a child. Under section 360 of Indian penal
code, 1860 there are two types of kidnapping i.e. Kidnapping from India and Kidnapping from
lawful guardianship. But there may be cases when both the kinds can overlap each other.
Kidnapping may be done to demand for ransom in exchange for releasing the victim, or for
other illegal purposes. Kidnapping can be accompanied by bodily injury which elevates the
REFERENCE
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.advocatekhoj.com
6|Page