![[Kidnapping] Mere Passive Association Insufficient to Convict; Minor’s Voluntary Departure Exonerates Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court](https://24law.in/default-image/default-730x400.png )
[Kidnapping] Mere Passive Association Insufficient to Convict; Minor’s Voluntary Departure Exonerates Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that merely accompanying a minor after their departure or exhibiting passive involvement does not fulfill the criteria for the offence of kidnapping a minor from lawful guardianship.
While upholding the acquittal of an accused in a case involving allegations of kidnapping a minor girl, the Court observed that the matter pertained to "consensual elopement" rather than abduction as claimed by the prosecution. Justice Sumeet Goel, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965), emphasized that under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), liability for kidnapping requires clear evidence of active enticement or direct action by the accused that led to the minor's departure from lawful custody. The Court reiterated that passive association or merely accompanying the minor after their departure does not satisfy the legal requirements for kidnapping.
The case originated from a complaint by the father of a minor girl, alleging she was abducted by the accused while on her way to school. During the proceedings, the Court highlighted that to establish an offence under Section 363 IPC, the prosecution must prove intentional actions by the accused that directly caused the minor to leave lawful guardianship. The act of "taking" must be deliberate and involve the removal of the minor from their custodian's protection.
Connection Between Accused's Conduct and Minor's Removal
The Court stressed that the prosecution must establish a direct link between the accused’s actions and the minor’s removal from lawful guardianship. Although coercion is not required, there must be evidence of enticement or influence. Additionally, it noted that the minor’s consent is irrelevant as the law deems minors incapable of granting valid consent in such circumstances.
In this case, the Court found no evidence of active enticement or removal by the accused, reaffirming that the essential elements of Section 363 IPC were not met.
Inducement and Illicit Intent Under Section 366-A IPC
Regarding the charge under Section 366-A IPC (Procuration of a minor girl), the Court outlined that the prosecution must demonstrate inducement by the accused with the intention of facilitating illicit intercourse. Inducement alone is insufficient unless it is shown that the accused's actions were aimed at achieving this specific illicit objective.
The Court determined that the prosecution failed to substantiate these allegations with credible evidence or witnesses. Furthermore, inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix, her voluntary association with the accused, and the absence of coercion or inducement undermined the prosecution’s case.
Considering the prosecutrix's voluntary actions, her age, and the lack of reliable evidence of enticement or illicit intent, the Court concluded that the elements required to prove offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC were absent. Consequently, the Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused was upheld.
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Punjab
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
