Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9th September 1964
K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
S. Varadarajan, Appellant
Versus
State of Madras, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (M/s. K. Jayaram and R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate (Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
KIDNAPPING - TAKING OUT OF KEEPING OF LAWFUL GUARDIAN - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT - MEANING OF TAKING - MINOR LEAVING FATHER'S PROTECTION KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY JOINING ACCUSED - NO TAKING BY ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
A minor girl, Savitri, left her father's house and joined the appellant, Varadarajan, who was residing in a house next door. They went to the Registrar's office and got their marriage registered. The girl's father lodged a complaint with the police, alleging that Savitri was a minor and could not be found. The appellant and Savitri were apprehended and charged with kidnapping under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant did not take Savitri out of the keeping of her lawful guardian. Savitri left her father's house of her own accord and joined the appellant voluntarily. The appellant did not induce or persuade her to leave her father's house. The court also held that the word "taking" in Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code does not include allowing a minor to accompany a person. The court distinguished this case from cases where the accused person had solicited or persuaded the minor to leave the house of the guardian.
Issues: Whether the appellant took Savitri out of the keeping of her lawful guardian.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant did not take Savitri out of the keeping of her lawful guardian because: * Savitri left her father's house of her own accord and joined the appellant voluntarily. * The appellant did not induce or persuade her to leave her father's house. * The word "taking" in Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code does not include allowing a minor to accompany a person.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The term "taking" in Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code does not include allowing a minor to accompany a person voluntarily (!) (!) .
A minor leaving her guardian’s house of her own accord and joining a person does not necessarily constitute "taking" out of lawful guardianship, especially if she does so voluntarily and without inducement or persuasion from the other person (!) (!) .
In cases where a minor leaves her guardian’s house of her own free will, and there is no active participation, persuasion, or inducement by the accused, the act may not amount to kidnapping under the relevant section (!) (!) .
The legal interpretation distinguishes between "taking" and "allowing a minor to accompany" someone; the latter does not automatically imply an offence unless there is evidence of active persuasion or inducement by the accused (!) (!) .
The capacity of a minor to make independent decisions and the absence of coercion or force are significant factors in determining whether "taking" has occurred (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that mere passive presence or the minor's voluntary decision to go with someone does not necessarily establish an offence of kidnapping or abduction unless coupled with active inducement or persuasion by the accused (!) (!) (!) .
The legal distinction is reinforced by the understanding that the protection of minors primarily aims to prevent coercion, undue influence, and active inducement, rather than penalize minors who act of their own volition (!) (!) .
The case law indicates that if a minor leaves her guardian’s house independently, and the accused does not actively persuade or induce her to do so, then the accused cannot be held liable for "taking" her out of guardianship (!) (!) .
The overall legal principle underscores that the mental attitude and voluntariness of the minor are crucial in assessing whether "taking" has occurred, with active persuasion or inducement being necessary elements for establishing an offence (!) (!) .
In the absence of evidence showing active participation, persuasion, or inducement by the accused, the act of allowing a minor to leave voluntarily does not constitute an offence under the relevant section (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification.
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J.: This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Madras affirming the conviction of the appellant under S. 303 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.
2. Savitri P. W. 4, is the third daughter of S. Natarajan, P. W. 1, who is an Assistant Secretary to the Government of Madras in the Department of Industries and Co-operation. At the relevant time, he was living on 6th Street, Lake area, Nangumbakkam, along with his wife and two daughters, Rama, P.W. 2, and Savitri P. W. 4. The former is older than the latter and was studying in the Madras Medical College while the latter was a student of the second year B.Sc., class in Ethiraj College.
3. A few months before September 30, 1960 Savitri became friendly with the appellant Varadarajan who was residing in a house next door to that of S. Natarajan. The appellant and Savitri used to carry on conversation with each other from their respective houses. On September 30, 1960 Rama found them talking to each other in this manner at about 9,00 a.m. and had also seen her talking like this on some previous occasions. That day she asked Savitri why she was talking with the appellant. Savitri replied saying that she wanted to marry the appellant. Savitri s intention was communicated by Rama to their father when he returned. home at about 11.00 a.m. on that day. Thereupon Natarajan questioned her. Upon being questioned Savitri started weeping but did not utter a word. The same day Natarajan took Savitri to Kodambakkam and left her at the house of a relative of his, K. Natarajan, P. W. 6, the idea being that, she should be kept as far away from, the appellant as possible for some time.
4. On the next day, i.e., on October 1, 1960 Savitri left the house of K. Natarajan at about 10.00 a.m. and telephoned to the appellant asking him to meet her on a certain road in that area and then went to that road herself. By the time she got there the appellant had arrived there in his car. She got into it and both of them went to the house of one P. T. Sami at Mylapore with a view to take that person along with them to the Registrar s office to witness their, marriage. After picking up Sami they went to the shop of Govindarajulu Naidu in Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road and the appellant purchased two gundus and Tirumangalyam which were selected by Savitri and then proceeded to the Registrar s office. Thereafter the agreement to marry entered into between the appellant and Savitri, which was apparently written there, was got registered. Thereafter the appellant asked her to wear the articles of jewellery purchased at Naidu s shop and she accordingly did so. The agreement which these two persons had entered into was attested by Sami as well as by one P. K. Mar, who was a co-accused before the Presidency Magistrate but was acquitted by him. After the document was registered the appellant and Savitri went to Ajanta Hotel and stayed there for a day. The appellant purchased a couple of sarees and blouses for Savitri the next day and then they went by train to Sattur. After a stay of a couple of days there, they proceeded to Sirukulam on October 4, and stayed there for 10 or 12 days. Thereafter they went to Coimbatore and then on to Tanjore where they were found by the police who were investigating into a complaint of kidnapping made by S. Natarajan and were then brought to Madras on November 3rd.
5. It may be mentioned that as Savitri did not return to his house after she went out on the morning of October 1st, K. Natarajan went to the house of S. Natarajan in the evening and enquired whether she had returned home. On finding that she had not, both these persons went to the railway station and various other places in search of Savitri. The search having proved fruitless, S. Natarajan went to the Nangumbakkam Police Station and lodged a complaint stating there that Savitri was a m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
