The Chhattisgarh High Court affirms the established principle that mere accompanying or passive facilitation by the accused is insufficient for conviction under Section 363 IPC if the minor voluntarily leaves lawful guardianship without inducement or active participation by the accused; judgment follows Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority within the State, providing persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/216/2018 of STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs MANIRAM VERMA |
| CNR | CGHC010171472018 |
| Date of Registration | 30-05-2018 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh, persuasive for other courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, 1964) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC, POCSO Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether passive facilitation or absence of inducement/active participation by accused can constitute “taking” for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that if a minor of sufficient understanding voluntarily leaves the lawful guardianship without inducement, enticement, or active participation by the accused, the requirements of “taking” under Section 363 IPC are not met. The court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, emphasizing that mere passive compliance or subsequent travel with the minor does not amount to “taking.” The evidence failed to show inducement or enticement, and the prosecutrix’s testimony established that she left on her own volition, with the accused only facilitating her wish. Thus, the ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1964 SCC OnLine SC 36) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Analysis of the element of “taking” in kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363 IPC, and the circumstances under which active instigation is required; reliance on English cases as discussed in S. Varadarajan; authorities on minor’s voluntary capacity. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecutrix, a minor, left her in-laws’ (husband’s) house of her own volition, accompanied by the accused to his residence and later to his aunt’s home where they stayed overnight. The prosecutrix stated she was not enticed or induced but left upon her own insistence. No physical relationship or abduction was established by evidence. The accused’s assistance was passive, and not criminal. The trial court had acquitted the accused of all charges, and the State appealed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1964 SCC OnLine SC 36) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies and affirms that under Section 363 IPC, “taking” or “enticing” a minor requires positive action, inducement, or participation by the accused; passive compliance with the minor’s wishes is not sufficient.
- The court explicitly applies the standard from S. Varadarajan, offering clear precedent on the requirements of the kidnapping offence from lawful guardianship.
- The judgment underscores the significance of the minor’s intention and capacity, and the necessity of evidence of inducement for conviction under kidnapping provisions.
- Practitioners in criminal law and child protection sectors should note the necessity of proving active persuasion or inducement for offences alleging kidnapping of minors.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the factual testimony, noting that the prosecutrix voluntarily left her lawful guardianship and sought the company of the accused, with no evidence of enticement or inducement.
- The element of “taking” in Section 363 IPC, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, requires active involvement by the accused, not merely passive association or acceding to the minor’s independently formed wish.
- The court cited with approval the reasoning from S. Varadarajan and distinguished English case law referenced therein, stating that the law does not impose liability simply for failing to return a minor who is determined to leave; there must be evidence of “taking.”
- Reviewed the prosecutrix’s statement, which made clear her voluntary departure and initiative, and lack of active involvement or assistance by the accused or co-accused.
- Concluded that the facts did not meet the statutory requirements of kidnapping or abduction, and that the trial court’s acquittal was correct and in line with established law.
- Dismissed the State’s appeal, finding no error or perversity in the lower court’s findings or application of law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State):
- Challenged the trial court’s findings as contrary to the record.
- Argued that the prosecution’s evidence, especially the prosecutrix’s statement, was not properly considered.
- Contended that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused.
Respondent:
- Supported the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.
- Emphasized that the evidence did not establish abduction, sexual exploitation, or inducement by the accused.
- Relied on the prosecutrix’s testimony confirming voluntary departure and absence of accused’s active involvement.
Factual Background
A written report was lodged by the prosecutrix’s husband alleging that his minor wife left home without informing anyone, and it was revealed the primary accused accompanied her under the pretext of marriage. The FIR was registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, later included other charges under IPC and POCSO Act after investigation. The prosecutrix was recovered and in her testimony stated she left voluntarily, without inducement, and no physical relationship occurred. The trial court acquitted both accused. The State challenged this finding on appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court focused on Section 363 IPC (“kidnapping from lawful guardianship”), interpreting “taking or enticing” to require active or inducive conduct.
- Detailed discussion of the legal ingredients from Supreme Court’s S. Varadarajan decision.
- No new interpretation or expansion of statutes; rather, affirmation and application of established statutory construction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was recorded in the judgment. Both judges concurred in the reasoning and outcome.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or novel directions were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedent (S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras) was followed and affirmed; no new precedential break or split verdict.