[Kidnapping] Existing Familial Bond Cannot Be Used To Justify Removing Minor From Legal Guardian's Custody: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused who was sentenced under Section 363 of the IPC for the offence of kidnapping a 15-year-old girl who was returning from school with her father.

On her way home, she passed a Maruti car parked on the road. The accused who was sitting inside the car with other men asked his daughter to stop and come inside the car. When she refused, they forced her inside and drove to Burdwan.

The father stated that the accused used to work with the complainant's brother as a laborer and would often visit their house and was thus acquainted with the members of their family.

In upholding the conviction, but releasing the accused due to time already served, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:

The consent of the victim is immaterial and the subsisting family bond cannot be an excuse for an escape of the victim from the parental custody at the pretext or behest of pleasant and affable relationship or to justify an act of removing a minor from the custody of her legal guardian and further does not absolve the appellant from being indicted of the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant was convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further a period of 4 months for the commission of an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

Upon considering the submissions by both sides, the court considered the witness statements given by them. It noted that the appellant had been a regular visitor in the house of the victim and an affectionate relationship developed between him and the family.

It was observed that despite such affinity, the appellant forcibly took the daughter into a Maruti car to a certain distance from his house and thereafter diverted its route towards Burdwan. The victim was aged 13 to 14 years at the relevant time.

Court held that although the victim had been to the house of the appellant before, and she had not made any adverse statements against him, the consent of the minor victim would be immaterial.

Accordingly, it upheld the conviction.

Case: Rahul Amin @ Rahul Haque -Vs- The State of West Bengal

Case No: C.R.A. 457 of 2002

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 238

Click here to read order