Punishment for kidnapping
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 363, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 137 Kidnapping Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sat Prakash vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The clear and unequivocal statement by a minor victim in a contemporaneous suicide note that she left her home of her own free will, combined with absence of prosecution evidence of inducement or force, is sufficient to negate the presumption of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC. Furthermore, Section 366-A IPC, which penalizes procuration of a minor girl with intent that she be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse 'with another person', cannot apply to allegations of sexual conduct between the minor and the person accused of procuring her, as the statutory language explicitly requires a third person to be involved.
On this section: Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Court held that kidnapping requires evidence of inducement or force; mere presence of girl in accused's residence without evidence of enticement is insufficient. The girl's clear statement in suicide note that she left of her own free will negated the kidnapping charge.
-
Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial for serious offences including rape and murder cannot be conducted in a hasty manner over 15 days without providing adequate time to the legal aid counsel to prepare the defence. The principle of fair trial, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, requires that the accused be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity to defend himself through competent counsel with sufficient preparation time. The trial court has a duty to ensure compliance with fair trial principles by granting adequate time to defence counsel, which should normally be a minimum of 7 days but may be more depending on circumstances. Forensic evidence including DNA reports must be properly proved through examination of expert witnesses who prepared the reports, and the accused must be given opportunity to cross-examine such experts. A trial conducted in violation of these principles is void and the conviction and sentence must be set aside with the matter remitted for de novo trial.
On this section: Sections under which appellant was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and murder of minor child; Court did not disturb these substantive provisions but set aside conviction due to procedural violations
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecutrix's testimony in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and can sustain a conviction. A woman who is the victim of sexual assault stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Her evidence must be appreciated in the background of the entire case with heightened sensitivity. Threats and coercion negate any notion of consent, and a minor cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse regardless of her apparent willingness or voluntary accompaniment. The court must not allow infirmities in investigation to undermine the credibility of victim testimony when the evidence is otherwise reliable.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - Initial charge registered against the appellants based on the complaint.
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, does not require corroboration from other witnesses or evidence to secure conviction; the court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if satisfied of its truthfulness. A woman in Indian society would not falsely accuse someone of rape knowing the severe social consequences and stigma she would face throughout her life. Therefore, her credible testimony must be evaluated with appropriate sensitivity to the trauma of rape, and the court should have no hesitation in accepting her evidence when it bears marks of reliability. The presence of knife threats, coercion, and the minor age of the victim are material factors negating the effect of the victim's voluntary accompanying of the accused, and do not indicate consent.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping: Used as basis for initial registration of case based on father's complaint of missing daughter.
-
Murugan @ Settu vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Documentary evidence of age, specifically birth certificates issued by municipal authorities under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, and corroborating entries in school registers made ante litem motam (before the dispute arose), are reliable and trustworthy evidence of a child's age in criminal proceedings. When such documentary evidence is supported by witness testimony, medical opinion based on radiological tests regarding apparent age cannot override the conclusive documentary proof. The absence of the child's name in the birth certificate does not cast doubt on its authenticity, as it is common knowledge that municipal birth certificates are registered immediately after birth before the child is named. Accordingly, in cases of sexual assault of minors, the court should primarily rely on such documentary evidence to determine the child's age, rather than medical opinions or statements made by the child herself.
On this section: Applied to convict accomplices Ramalingam and Siva. High Court modified the conviction from Sections 366 r/w 109 to Section 363 r/w 109 for the accomplices, indicating simple wrongful confinement rather than kidnapping with specific intent.
-
Baij Nath Sah vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Moreover, a person cannot be convicted of kidnapping or abduction merely because the victim was brought to his home after the kidnapping had already been effected by other accused persons. There must be independent evidence showing his involvement in the actual kidnapping or the events preceding it to establish criminal liability for such offences.
On this section: Defines punishment for punishment for wrongful abduction; High Court altered conviction from Section 366-A to Section 363
-
State of Punjab vs Hari Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused is charged with possession of narcotic articles under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, conscious possession - meaning awareness of the nature of the article coupled with a deliberate or intended state of mind - is an essential legal requirement. In the absence of questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding this vital element of the prosecution case, the trial suffers from a serious procedural infirmity that cannot be cured by circumstantial evidence of physical possession alone, and the conviction must be set aside as violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair trial.
On this section: Court referenced this section in discussing what constitutes warrant versus summons cases for purposes of Section 313 CrPC.
-
Ranjit Singh @ Jita vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded after merely 20-30 minutes of cooling-off time to an accused held in police custody for 18-20 days cannot be considered a valid and safe basis for conviction. Conviction cannot be maintained solely on testimony of police officials when independent evidence is absent, contradictory, or hostile. The principle from Sarwan Singh case requiring at least 24 hours cooling-off period (and longer if coercion is suspected) must be strictly followed to ensure confessions are genuinely voluntary and free from police influence. The cooling-off period must be a meaningful exercise, not a mechanical formality.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - read with Section 149 in context of alleged incident
-
Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an appellate court reviews an acquittal order, it should interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons - specifically when the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated or overlooked. Where a trial court has not properly considered the intrinsic and probative value of credible evidence and has relied on surmises, conjectures, and improbabilities rather than analyzing the substantive merits of the evidence, the appellate court is justified in interfering. Minor and trivial discrepancies in witness statements, which do not amount to contradictions affecting credibility, do not warrant rejection of testimony, particularly when the core evidence from the victim and corroborating witnesses remains unshaken on cross-examination. The presence of minor inconsistencies in collateral matters does not undermine the fundamental reliability of witness testimony when the central facts of the case are established.
On this section: Applied to establish the crime of kidnapping - taking or enticing a person with intent to confine. Court found appellants guilty of this offense as they deceived and transported minor without parental permission with intent to hold him for ransom.
-
Parveen Kumar Sareen vs The State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court has the supervisory power and responsibility to direct subordinate courts to dispose of long-pending criminal cases within a specified timeframe when inordinate delay is evident, balancing the rights of the accused to a speedy trial with the need for proper adjudication of serious criminal charges by the trial court.
On this section: Serious charges including kidnapping, abduction, murder, concealment of evidence, forgery, and criminal conspiracy in FIR No. 25/2003
-
State of Rajasthan vs Babu Meena
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be wholly reliable and worthy of credence without requiring corroboration, such conviction is unsafe when the prosecutrix's testimony is wholly unreliable, is marred by material contradictions that remain unexplained, and is contradicted or unsupported by medical, forensic, and eyewitness evidence. In such circumstances, acquittal based on reasonable doubt is the only proper course.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - Alleged kidnapping of the victim was a charge brought against the accused
-
Salamat Ansari v. State of U.P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Two majors who choose to live together / marry, including after conversion, are protected by Article 21. FIR under IPC 363/366 and POCSO 7/8 quashed where the woman was a major (High School certificate) and living voluntarily with her partner. Courts look at them as two adults, not as Hindu and Muslim. Distinguishes contrary single-judge conversion-for-marriage cases (Noor Jahan / Priyanshi).
On this section: Kidnapping not made out where the woman is a major and left home of her own will.
-
Riya vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate, unless and until rebutted by the issuing authority, holds good in the eye of law and constitutes conclusive proof for determining the victim's age in criminal proceedings. When a victim's age is material to the constitution of an offence (such as kidnapping under Section 363 IPC), the documentary evidence of date of birth from official records cannot be set aside merely on the basis of the accused's assertion or the victim's subsequent marriage. The burden lies on the party challenging the recorded date of birth to produce cogent and conclusive proof of rebuttal.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - applied to establish that if victim was minor, the offence is made out regardless of subsequent marriage
-
Sathish vs The State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a POCSO Act case has made out arguable points in his appeal, and the appeal cannot be taken up for final hearing in the near future, the High Court may suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of the appeal, provided the accused is enlarged on bail with appropriate conditions to ensure his presence and compliance with court orders.
On this section: Petitioner was convicted for kidnapping the victim girl. Section 361 defines kidnapping, and Section 363 prescribes punishment for kidnapping. The court applied these sections to establish the offense of kidnapping.
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Amol Nanasaheb Jogdanda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the primary witness (complainant) in a criminal case admits to an out-of-court settlement with the accused and recants the allegations, and no other credible corroborating evidence is presented by the prosecution, the accused persons must be acquitted as the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged. The court cannot convict based on mere allegations when the complainant himself contradicts the complaint and admits to amicable resolution of the dispute.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - applied to determine criminal liability for unlawful confinement
-
Angrez Chand vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through Station House Officer Police Station Thathri District Doda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges, a trial court must conduct a limited prima facie assessment of whether the material on record raises strong suspicion of the accused's involvement in the alleged offence, without going into the probative value of evidence or making findings on matters that require opportunity for proper investigation or identification. A finding that a witness has not identified the accused cannot be made at the charge framing stage without first providing the witness an opportunity to identify through proper procedure such as a Test Identification Parade. The presence of prima facie material in the FIR and statements of parties is sufficient to frame charges, even if medical evidence does not support certain specific offences.
On this section: Kidnapping - wrongfully compounding or enticing a minor out of lawful guardianship with criminal intent. Court found sufficient prima facie material to frame charge despite trial court's discharge.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Pursuant to this reporting, FIR No.38 of 2013 was registered on 30.01.2013 with Police Station Chaigaon Makhan, Khandwa for offences under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code.1860 ('IPC', for short) against the appellant. (B) The body of the victim was found in an open field on 01.02.2013. (C) The appellant was arrested on 04.02.2013, and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed on 13.02.2013 in the concerned court and the case was …
-
… > (Disclosure of the name and identification of the prosecutrix is withheld in compliance with statutory provisions of 228-A of IPC, victim referred as "prosecutrix") J U D G M E N T 1. The aforesaid accused has been sent up to face trial along with other co-accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here-in-referred to as IPC), by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-26, Chandigarh. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that on 22.11.2021, ASI Sukhdev Singh, Belt No.1664/CHG along with other police officials was at BDC Light Point, …
Questions about Section 363
What have the courts held on Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sat Prakash vs State of Haryana (09 Dec 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Court held that kidnapping requires evidence of inducement or force; mere presence of girl in accused's residence without evidence of enticement is insufficient. The girl's clear statement in suicide note that she left of her own free will negated the kidnapping charge. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2002 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 363, section 363 IPC, section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 363 366a in hindi and ipc 363 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sat Prakash vs State of Haryana (09 Dec 2015).
What should I read with Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 137 (Kidnapping), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 363, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.