The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that there has to be an element of force, compulsion, or deceitful means or any inducement, which would directly or indirectly force a person to go with the abductors as per Section 362 of the IPC. Thus, if any force is applied upon a person or a deceitful means is resorted to, which compels a person to go from any place to another, it will be termed as “abduction”.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the son of the informant left the house with his three-wheeler but he didn’t return. Then, he gave the information to the police station. Upon searching, he found out that the tempo of his son was parked in a place within the jurisdiction of Ulidih Outpost within Chandil jurisdiction and found that an attempt was made to deface the registration number and the phone number, which was printed. Later on, the informant submitted that Bapi (appellant) and Sunil and other two were seen going in the tempo of this deceased and he believes that to commit the murder of his son they kidnapped him. The case was registered under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, the charge sheet was filed for the offenses under Section 364/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that no case is made out under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code as basic ingredients of Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., “kidnapping” or “abduction” is missing in this case. It was furthermore submitted that on the basis of the statement of the witnesses, the appellant can’t be convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that they had seen the Appellant with the deceased at the same tempo and later on, the dead body was found in the state of West Bengal, therefore, the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated in West Bengal.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that there has to be an element of kidnapping or abduction of any person to attract Section 364 Indian Penal Code. The word “kidnapping” is defined under Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code and kidnapping is of two types. The first one is kidnapping from India and the second is kidnapping from lawful guardianship. It is evident from the definition of "abduction" in Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code that there must be some element of coercion, force, deceitful methods, or inducement that would either directly or indirectly force a person to accompany the abductors. Therefore, it will be considered "abduction" if someone is compelled to go from one location to another by force or by using dishonest means.
The court noted that the prosecution must demonstrate that the deceased was compelled to move due to the use of force, deceitful means, inducements, or other circumstances. However, no evidence was produced which depicts that there was any deceitful mean or inducement by this appellant, that forced or compelled the deceased to move from one place to another.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the basic ingredients of “kidnapping” and “abduction” were missing in this case and acquitted the Appellant of the charges.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Bapi Namta @ Baapi Namta Vs. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1837 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Spl.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
