Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Sections 359 to 369 of the Indian Penal Code have made kidnapping and abduction punishable with varying degrees of severity according to the nature and gravity of the offence. The underlying object of enacting these provisions is to secure the personal liberty of citizens, to give legal protection to the children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes and to preserve the rights of parents and guardians over their wards for custody or upbringing. The word ‘kidnapping’ has been derived from the word ‘kid’ meaning ‘child’ and ‘napping', 'to steal'. Thus, kidnapping literally means child stealing. And the word kidnapper was originally meant to signify one who stole children and others to provide servants and labourers for the American plantations. Kidnapping under the Code is not confined to child stealing. It has been given a wider connotation as meaning carrying away a human being against his or her consent or the consent of some person legally authorized to accord consent on behalf of such person. The word 'convey' literally means simply going together on a journey, but in popular parlance, it now means carrying a person to his destination. Thus, the offence would 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. That Act becomes criminal if it is conveyed without his consent. A person may be conveyed as such by using force as by inducing him to give his consent by fraud and deception. Similarly, consent loses its essential elements if it is given under fear or duress, in which case it is submission and not consent.  Abduction in common language means the carrying away of a person by fraud or force. According to Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code, abduction takes place when a person by force compels or by any deceitful means induces another person to go from any place. Abduction, pure and simple, is not an offence. It is an auxiliary act not punishable in itself, but when it is accompanied by a certain intention to commit another offence, it per se becomes punishable as an offence. The expression 'deceitful', as used in this provision, is wide enough to include inducing a girl to leave her guardian's house on a pretext. It also implies the use of misrepresentation and fraud by acts or conduct.
Question
Mr. A met a girl, namely Ms. B, aged about fourteen years, who was living with a Brahmin woman in the sarai of a village, where they maintained themselves by begging. Ms B was persuaded by a goldsmith named Ghasi and was married to his son. But as she was not given enough food to eat, she lent herself to the persuasion of the accused to quit Ghasi’s house and to go with him for which he was prosecuted.
As a Court of competent jurisdiction, determine the criminal liability of the accused in the facts of the above-mentioned.

 

Option: 1

The accused is not liable for the offence of kidnapping as there was no lawful guardian.

 


Option: 2

The accused is liable for the offence of abduction as she was kept out of the lawful guardianship.

 


Option: 3

The accused is not liable for the offence of kidnapping as the guardianship of the husband is not recognized in this provision.

 


Option: 4

None of the above

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

In the case of Baldeo (1870) 2 NWPH, quashed the conviction of the accused was announced by the lower courts and upheld since Ghasi from whom the girl was abducted was not her lawful guardian, as he has not been lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of the minor, and thus the accused was not liable for kidnapping. The same applies to the facts of the above-mentioned matter.
Hence a) is the right answer.

 

Posted by

Riya

View full answer