Case – State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, 1973
Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Fact – Santosh Rani, aged about 14 years, daughter of Narain Dass, a resident of village Jor Majra, in the district of Karnal. Jai Narain, a resident of village Muradgarh, close to the village Jor Majra, once visited the house of Narain Das for treating his ailing sons, Subhas Chander and Jagjit Singh. When the two boys were cured by Jai Narain, Narain Dass began to treat him as his Guru.
Jai Narain started paying frequent visits to Narain Das’s house and apparently began to cast an evil eye on the Santosh Rani. He persuaded her to accompany him by inducing her to believe that he would keep her like a queen, having nice clothes to wear, good food to eat and a servant at her disposal.
On one occasion Narain Das happened to see Jai Narain talking to Santosh Rani and felt suspicious with the result that he requested Jai Narain not to visit his house anymore. Having been prohibited from visiting Narain Das’s house, Jai Narain started sending messages to the Santosh Rani through Raja Ram. As desired by Jai Narain, Raja Ram persuaded Santosh Rani to go with him to the house of Jai Narain.
Santosh Rani, as desired, went to Raja Ram’s house. Raja Ram went to bring Jai Narain, whom he brought after some time, and handing over the Santosh Rani to Jai Narain.
Issue – Whether Raja Ram could be held to be guilty of offence under section 366, Indian Penal Code.
Contentions & Judgement:
- The object of section 361 seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards.
The ingredients of kidnapping from lawful guardian lies in the:
- taking or enticing
- of a minor under the ages specified in this section,
- out of the keeping of the lawful guardian
- without the consent of such guardian.
- The consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial. It is only the guardian’s consent which takes the case out of its purview.
- It is not necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force, or fraud. Persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the section.
- Raja Ram actively participated in the formation of the intention of Santosh Rani to leave her father‘s house, and the facts that the respondent did not go to her house to bring her and that she was easily persuaded to go with him would not prevent the respondent from being guilty of the offence. Her consent or willingness to accompany the respondent would be immaterial and it would be equally so even if the proposal to go with the respondent had emanated from her.
- Decision of High Court was overruled. Raja Ram was convicted for kidnapping. Decision
of ‘Additional Sessions Judge’ was affirmed on both the conviction and sentence.
