Summary
The appellant challenged his surviving kidnapping convictions after the High Court had acquitted him of rape. The Supreme Court held that the minor’s consent or romantic relationship did not answer proved enticement from lawful guardianship. It nevertheless reduced imprisonment to the period already served, considering the absence of force, the appellant’s youth, over 22 years’ passage, rehabilitation and the parties’ settled separate family lives.
Issues
- Whether a consensual relationship defeated kidnapping charges where enticement of a minor from lawful guardianship was established.
- Whether the five-year sentence warranted reduction in the particular circumstances.
Provisions considered
- Sections 361 and 366, Indian Penal Code, 1860Taking or enticement must be proved; the minor’s consent does not replace the guardian’s consent. The necessary inducement and intention were established here. (¶ 11–19)
Held
- Minority and recovery alone do not establish kidnapping: taking or enticement must also be proved, although enticement can be subtle and need not be immediate. Here, the evidence established inducement to meet at a designated place and accompany the appellant. (¶ 12–14)
- A minor girl’s consent or infatuation is no defence to established kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Varadarajan was distinguished because it concerns voluntary departure without assistance or inducement, unlike the evidence here. The convictions under Sections 363 and 366 were sustained. (¶¶ 15–19, 28)
- Sentencing required proportionality and consideration of all circumstances, rather than reduction solely for delay. The absence of force or weapons, youthful age, lengthy elapsed period, no reported other criminality, rehabilitation and settled lives justified reducing imprisonment to time already undergone in this case. (¶ 20–28)
Result
Appeal partly allowed: kidnapping convictions maintained, imprisonment reduced to period already undergone, appellant set free and bail bonds discharged.