Section 362 IPC, 1860
The offences of kidnapping and abduction are kindred or cognate offences. Abduction in common language means the carrying away of a person by fraud or force. There may be cases in which an act falls under both offences. e.g. when force or deceit is employed in removing a female minor from the custody of the guardian with indent to force her to illicit intercourse, etc. However, in the majority of cases, the act, while coming within the purview of one of the offences, will not attract the provision of the other.
Section 362 merely defines what ‘abduction’ is. It reads: “whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.”
Essential Ingredients: This Section requires the following two essentials:
(1) there must be forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful and
(2) the object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of the abducted person from any place.
If Mahbub (1905) 6 Cri. LJ 9, an orphan girl aged about 17 year was brought up M as his own daughter. M’s neighbor ‘A’ induced her to leave home on the assurance that either he himself would marry her or get her married. he did neither, instead handed her over to one of his friends who also proceeded to have connection with her. A was held guilty of his offence. It was held that the expression ‘deceitful means’ is wide enough to include the inducing of a girl to leave her guardian’s house by means of a representation that the person to whom she went either marry her himself or arrange for her marriage.
In Vinod Chaturvedi V. State of MP, (1984) The defendant was alleged to have abducted the deceased Brindaban. During the course of investigation it was found that Brindaban on being persuaded by the accused persons and Vinod in particular, went inside his house, came out properly dressed to accompany the group to village Rampura. It was held that Brindaban was not abducted by the accused person.
‘A’ is minor wife of ‘B’. ‘C’ takes her forcibly and without the consent of ‘B’ and keeps her in house for two months. There she develops intimacy with ‘X’ a neighbor of ‘C’ and runs away with ‘X’ to Agra, where both of them are arrested on the report of ‘B’. In this case C liable for the offence of abduction under section 362 of the code. X may be liable only when A is taken for some illegal purpose. In my opinion the law is deficient on this point and provision should be made to made even taking of such type as an offence. ‘X’ is not liable for kidnapping because C was not lawful guardian of A at that time.