Kidnapping or Abducting with Intent Secretly and Wrongfully to Confine that Person - Section 365

Judgments

B. Laxmi (Smt) v. B. Supreme Court Of India Nov 29, 1996: In this case, it's about a husband and wife. The wife accused her husband of breaking Indian Penal Code Sections 494, 506, 365/511 in a criminal complaint. A summons was issued to the husband. The husband and wife worked out their differences and attempted to add insult to injury during this period. The criminal court had no problems with crimes punishable under the Indian Penal Code Sections 494 and 506. It ran into difficulties because the offence under Sections 365/511 IPC was not compoundable. This point of view is unarguable, however, the complaint shows that Section 365 of the IPC was never invoked. According to the lawsuit, the husband forced his wife into an auto-rickshaw and drove her to her father's house, where he abandoned her. In carrying out such a kidnapping, no mens rea is required. it's also possible that this is due to the husband's asserted entitlement. As a result, we rejected the accusation lodged under Sections 365/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining offences attract prison sentences. As a result, the sought compounding authorization was granted. Both the husband and the wife were acquitted. The matter has come to a conclusion. 

Nanchhi Devi v. State Of Rajasthan High Court Mar 17, 2016: The order dated 18.11.2015 issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, is challenged in this criminal misc petition.

The debates lasted for quite a while. A cost of Rs. 1000/- has been imposed on the petitioner, according to learned skilled counsel for the petitioner.

The order may be annulled to that extent, and the petitioner may be granted the opportunity to file an application under section 216 CrPC at the appropriate stage if proof of the accused's commission of a crime under section 365 IPC is discovered, and to add the charge.

In light of skilled counsel for the petitioner's request, interference in the impugned order is limited to quashing the order and imposing a fee of Rs.1000/-. The imposing cost is removed from the order without affecting the rest of it. The petition 2is dismissed as such, but it retains the right to file an application under section 216 CrPC if evidence of the accused's commission of an offence under section 365 IPC becomes available. In that instance, the court would assess the application in its own right, without regard for the challenged order. 

Get in touch with the best lawyer online

Rajjan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 18 November 2017: The result of the foregoing analysis and discussion is that, in the absence of proof of abductees being subjected to threat or reasonable apprehension of the threat of death or harm, and in the total absence of evidence to support the other factum of demand, payment, and receipt of ransom money, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellant cannot be held guilty for kidnapping. However, since the prosecution has established that the abductees were kidnapped by a gang of people, including the appellant, and that they were secretly and wrongfully detained for a long time, the essential elements of Section 365 IPC appear to have been established, and the appellant deserves to be convicted for both the offences arising out of the abduction.

In Criminal Appeal No. 626/2015, the appellant was also found guilty of an offence punishable under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven (7) years of R.I., as well as a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which he was sentenced to six (6) months of R.I. Any amount already paid will be deducted from the fine of Rs. 5000/-.

If the appellant has received a modified sentence in both appeals, he will be released immediately and his bail bonds will be released; however, if the appellant has not yet received a reduced or modified sentence in both appeals, he must surrender immediately or the trial court will be directed to apprehend him.