DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION
|According to section 360, if any person takes a person beyond the limits of India against the consent of that person or against the consent of someone who is legally entitled to give consent on that person’s behalf, then the offence of kidnapping from India is committed.||Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code defines abduction. It says that if a person compels another person to go from one place, or induces some person to go from one place, then the offence of abduction is committed.|
|Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for both kinds of kidnapping (Kidnapping from India and Kidnapping from lawful guardianship).||Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code states that if a person kidnaps or abducts a person so that such person is subjected to or is put in danger of grievous hurt, slavery or unnatural lust of any person, must be punished.|
|Imprisonment of either description which can extend up to seven years, and Fine.||Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.|
|The offence is completed as soon as a person is taken away from the country or from his/her lawful guardianship.||It is a continuing offence and involves forcibly or deceitfully taking a person from one place to another.|
|In kidnapping the intention of the person kidnapping the minor or person of unsound mind is immaterial.||In abduction, intention is essential to determine the guilt of the accused.|
|Consent of the person kidnapped is immaterial; however, the consent of the guardian can be material.||In case the person abducted gives his/her consent, it is considered that there is no offence.|
|As per section 360 and 361, the female kidnapped should be under 18 years of age and male kidnapped should be under 16 years of age.||There is no provision which puts a bar on the age of the person abducted, since being a minor is not essential to constitute this offence.|
|Illustration: ‘A’ is a woman living in New Delhi. ‘B takes ‘A’ to Bangladesh without her consent. ‘B’ committed the offence of kidnapping ‘A’ from India.||Illustration: ‘A’ is a man who wears the uniform of a police officer to convince a girl, ‘B’ to come to his house with him, and because of his misrepresentation she goes with him. In this case, ‘A’ uses deceitful means to commit the offence of abduction.|
CASE LAWS FOR KIDNAPPING
- Before we continue, it's worth noting that an exception was established in the case of Chadrakala Menon and others v. Vipin Menon. The appellant Chandrakala was married to Vipin Menon in this case. They were both well-employed and settled in the United States. They had a daughter, who was transferred to live with her maternal grandparents in India. Unfortunately, disagreements emerged between them, and they chose to split up. The girl remained to reside with her maternal grandparents while Vipin Menon filed a custody suit for his daughter. Vipin Menon took his daughter to a different state while the custody case was still being resolved. His grandparents filed a kidnapping case against him. The court, however, determined that Vipin Menon was the child's natural guardian. His grandparents filed a kidnapping case against him. The court, however, determined that Vipin Menon was the child's natural guardian.
- In the case of Smt Suman and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court rendered an unusual decision. It was decided that if a minor girl, who is 17 years old and mature enough to understand the consequences and rationale behind her actions, leaves her parents' custody to live with a boy who has not subjected her to any pressure, inducement, or other form of coercion, it does not constitute an offence under section 361 of the IPC and is not punishable.
CASE LAWS FOR ABDUCTION
- The court held in Shri Moni Neog and others v. the State of Assam that Sanjay Ghose's abductors abducted him with the intent to murder him, or at the very least had knowledge that he might be murdered or had put him in danger of being murdered. It also stated that whether he was murdered or not is immaterial. What matters is that the kidnappers made no indication that they would spare his life at any point. As a consequence, the court found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to life in prison and a fine of Rs. 2000 apiece.
- The court concluded in Netra Pal v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) that the mere retrieval 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.
Kidnapping and abduction are harmful activities that restrict a person's freedom. Sections 359 to 369 go a long way in ensuring people's liberty. They provide kidnapping and abduction protection for youngsters. It is critical to prevent these heinous crimes and to halt the rise of the culture of kidnapping and abduction, particularly when it is carried out for forced marriages, forced sexual intercourses, and forced beg, among other things.
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 compel 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.