1. Alleged kidnapping of a female — Conviction under Section 366 IPC modified to Section 363 IPC — Appeal against conviction. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Venkatesha & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2014
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Thashmishtha Mothanna, Adv. Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Naved Ahmed, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Thashmishtha Mothanna, Adv. Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Naved Ahmed, Adv.
Important Points
The court ruled that the victim's age of 19 years at the time of the incident precluded the application of kidnapping laws under IPC, leading to the quashing of the conviction under Section 366 IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Kidnapping
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 361 and 363 - Kidnapping - Conviction under Section 366 IPC set aside; appellants convicted under Section 363 IPC with one-year imprisonment - Victim was 19 years old at the time of incident, thus provisions of Sections 361 and 363 IPC not applicable - No identification parade conducted, raising doubts on prosecution's case. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
(B) Appeal - Scope of appellate review - Appellate court must consider whether the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal before interfering. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for kidnapping a 19-year-old victim under Section 366 IPC. The High Court found no evidence of ransom demand and convicted them under Section 363 IPC instead, sentencing them to one year in prison.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was quashed due to the victim's age and lack of identification procedures.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of Sections 361 and 363 IPC given the victim's age and the validity of the identification of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the victim was above 18 years, the provisions of Sections 361 and 363 IPC could not apply, and the lack of an identification parade cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Appeal - Scope of appellate review - Appellate court must consider whether the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal before interfering. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for kidnapping a 19-year-old victim under Section 366 IPC. The High Court found no evidence of ransom demand and convicted them under Section 363 IPC instead, sentencing them to one year in prison.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was quashed due to the victim's age and lack of identification procedures.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of Sections 361 and 363 IPC given the victim's age and the validity of the identification of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the victim was above 18 years, the provisions of Sections 361 and 363 IPC could not apply, and the lack of an identification parade cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend conviction is unsustainable as the victim was a major — Respondent argues the reduced sentence warrants no interference. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Victim's age exceeded the statutory limit for kidnapping from lawful guardianship — Absence of identification parade after significant time gap casts doubt on identification of unknown accused. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 )
4. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 IPC is inapplicable if the female victim is eighteen years of age or older. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside — Bail bonds discharged. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. What is the age threshold for kidnapping from lawful guardianship under the IPC?
Under Section 361 IPC, kidnapping from lawful guardianship occurs when a minor under sixteen years of age if male, or under eighteen years of age if female, is taken or entice out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without consent. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 )
7. Can Sections 361 and 363 IPC be invoked if the female victim is a major?
No, if the victim is above eighteen years of age at the time of the alleged offence, the provisions of Section 361 and Section 363 IPC cannot be invoked. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. What is the impact of a long delay and lack of identification parade on the trial?
A substantial gap between the incident and trial, without a prior identification parade for unknown accused, raises serious doubts about the veracity of identification made for the first time in the witness box. (Para 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the High court of Karnataka at Bangalore, vide which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and set aside the judgment and order of the P.O. and Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, at Kolar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Thereafter, the High Court convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
FACTS:
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
2.1 According to the prosecution on 21st February, 1997 at about 08:00 a.m., PW2-Bharathi-victim, the daughter of PW1 was going along with PW7-Kalavathi and PW-9-Sharada to the College at Srinivasapur from Kallur village. They boarded the bus from Kallur village to Srinivasapur. When they got down at Srinivaspur bus stand at about 08:00 a.m., they saw a car parked. The original accused No.1-Reddappa, who is known to PW2 and who was also from the same village, came out from the said car, allegedly gagged her mouth and forcibly took PW2 in the car to a place called Navadi Village in Hosur Taluk, Tamil Nadu. She was kept in the house of accused Nos. 6 and 7. It is the prosecution’s case that the PW7 and PW9, who had seen the incident, went to the house of PW1 (Smt. Chowdamma), the mother of the victim, and informed her that accused No.1 and others have kidnapped the PW2. PW1 went to Srinivasapur Police Station wherein the statement of PW1 was recorded at 10:15 a.m. and Crime No. 42 of 1997 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. In a search operation, the police party went to the house of accused Nos. 6 and 7. They found victim-PW2 and accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the said house. The police arrested accused Nos. 1 to 3 and brought the victim to the police station and produced them before the PW-15, G.N. Narayanappa, the Investigating Officer (I.O.). Accused Nos. 4 to 7 were not arrested.
2.2 Since the original accused No.1 was absconding, the trial was conducted against the six other accused.
2.3 Upon the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
2.4 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court.
2.5 Learned single Judge of the High Court found that the Trial Court had erred in convicting the appellants under Section 366 of the IPC, inasmuch as there was no demand for ransom.
2.6 However, the High Court has set aside the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and convicted the appellants punishable for an offence under Section 363 IPC and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default to pay fine, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each. It was also directed that out of the fine amount of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to the PW2 and Rs.5,000/- fine in the State account.
3. We have heard Mr. Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondentState of Karnataka.
4. Mr. Devasa submits that learned Trial Court has grossly erred in convicting the appellants. He submits that an offence under Section 366 IPC was not made out, inasmuch as the victim herself has admitted in her evidence that she was 19 years old at time of incident. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. Singhvi, on the contrary, submits that the High Court has
