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, belonging to the kandha tribe and for the purpose of marrying her, abducted a young married woman, namely Ms B, from the lawful guardian and against her will. The custom of the kandha tribe recognizes a form of marriage in which the groom forcibly takes away a young girl, and later the marriage is solemnized with the full consent of both families.
As a Court of competent jurisdiction, determine the criminal liability of Mr A under the Indian Penal Code.
Mr A is liable for the offence of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship of the Ms B
Mr A is liable for the offence of abduction
Mr A is not liable for any offence as such an act is not punishable as per the customs of the kandha tribe.
Mr A's liability shall be determined as per the discretion of the Court.
In the case of Dutta Pradhan v State of Orissa, 1985 Cr LJ 1842, it was upheld by the Court that even though such a custom exists where the accused belonging to the kandha tribe forcibly takes away a young girl and later the marriage is recognized as per the consents of both the families, such an act would legalize a crime of forcibly kidnapping a married woman from her lawful guardian against her will.
Hence a) is the right answer.