Mere Accompaniment Of Minor Not Kidnapping Without ‘Taking’ Or ‘Enticing’: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of kidnapping a minor girl, holding that merely accompanying a minor who voluntarily leaves her home does not amount to “taking” or “enticing” under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients required to sustain a conviction under Section 363 IPC.

Justice Pradeep Mittal passed the order while allowing a criminal appeal filed by Ravi Das Gupta against the judgment of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Maihar, Satna, which had sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was represented by advocates Rajesh Kumar Tiwari and Ravendra Shukla, while Ritwik Parashar appeared for the State.

According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix went missing from her house on March 15, 2013, following which a missing person report was registered at Police Station Badera in Maihar. During investigation, it was found that the appellant was also missing from the village, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC on suspicion that he had abducted the girl.

The prosecutrix returned home on her own after five days and was medically examined. During trial, she stated that she had voluntarily left her house at around 4 am and travelled with the appellant from Badera to Maihar, Jabalpur and later Mumbai. She further stated that the appellant had promised to marry her but had not committed any wrongful act against her.

In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix clearly told the Court that the appellant neither used force nor induced her to leave home. She stated that she had gone with him “of her own free will” after informing her mother and that she herself wanted to marry him, although her parents opposed the proposal. She also admitted that no sexual assault or coercion took place during the period she stayed with him.

The trial court had acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 366 IPC after finding no evidence of abduction for marriage or illicit purposes. However, it convicted him under Section 363 IPC solely on the ground that the prosecutrix was around 15 years and six months old at the time of the incident and therefore legally incapable of giving valid consent.

Setting aside the conviction, the High Court held that the trial court committed a “fundamental error of law” by confusing the irrelevance of a minor’s consent with the separate requirement of proving “taking” or “enticement” by the accused.

“The irrelevance of the minor's consent cannot operate to supply the missing ingredient of ‘taking’ or ‘enticing’,” the Court observed. It further said that “mere passivity or acquiescence, i.e., allowing a minor to accompany one of her own accord, has been consistently held by the courts not to constitute ‘taking’ within the meaning of Section 361 IPC.”

The Court noted that the prosecutrix herself was the “initiating and moving party” and that the appellant did not force, lure, threaten or persuade her to leave the custody of her parents. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish some positive act by the accused showing inducement or active participation in removing the minor from lawful guardianship.

Observing that no allegation of rape, sexual assault or any forced act had been made against the appellant at any stage, the Court held that the conviction was “wholly disproportionate, unjust, and legally unsustainable.” The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction quashed and the appellant directed to be released forthwith.

Justice Mittal also observed that when evidence itself shows the minor voluntarily left home without persuasion, the statutory ingredients of kidnapping remain incomplete despite the victim’s age. The Court emphasized that criminal liability cannot rest merely on the company of the accused. It further directed that any fine deposited pursuant to the conviction be refunded to the appellant without delay immediately.

Case Title: Ravi Das Gupta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: April 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Pradeep Mittal