Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, 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 365, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 140 Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom, etc Close, with changes 76%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For a conviction under Section 376 IPC based on false promise of marriage, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and made a false promise of marriage with the sole objective of seducing the victim into sexual acts from the very inception of the relationship. Mere breach of a promise to marry, or failure to fulfil a promise due to unforeseen circumstances or changed intentions during the course of the relationship, does not constitute rape unless the deception was deliberate and predatory from the beginning. The victim's age, maturity, voluntary participation, lack of resistance, and continued hope of marriage are relevant factors in determining whether consent was genuinely given or obtained through deception.
On this section: Offence of kidnapping or abducting a person with intent to wrongfully confine; charged but conviction overturned on finding that victim accompanied accused voluntarily
-
M. Vijayakumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish: (1) that the victim committed suicide, (2) that the accused abetted the commission of suicide through a positive act of instigation or aiding, (3) that the accused possessed clear mens rea (guilty mind) with the intention to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide, and (4) that there was an active or direct act by the accused that led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option. In the absence of evidence establishing these elements, particularly the mens rea and active act, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case.
On this section: Kidnapping - the appellant was acquitted of this charge by the High Court, which was central to the prosecution's theory of abetment.
-
The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a life convict is subsequently convicted for another offense and sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the new sentence runs concurrently with the life sentence under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., not consecutively under Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C., because a life sentence has no 'unexpired' portion in the technical sense contemplated by Section 426(2)(b). Therefore, the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. is the correct approach for determining sentence computation in such cases.
On this section: Kidnapping charge; the subsequent conviction was under this section, resulting in one year simple imprisonment
-
Bomb Selvam @ Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the majority opinion (Justice V. Gopala Gowda) is that accomplice evidence, even if the witnesses are not formally designated as accomplices, must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence before an accused can be convicted. When the prosecution fails to provide such independent corroboration and the accused has been acquitted of the conspiracy charge, the conviction under abetment cannot be sustained. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the involvement of each accused individually in each offence charged, and mere presence at meetings or involvement in preparatory acts without direct evidence of participation in the crime is insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Punishment for abduction; applied to convict appellants for abduction of M.K. Balan
-
Manickam @ Poonga Manickam vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence requires corroboration from independent sources in material particulars connecting accused with crime. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. When accomplice evidence is the sole link between accused and crime and lacks independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC precludes conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of overt act in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence can sustain conviction when corroborated by confessional statements, vehicle recoveries, and circumstantial evidence. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with different ingredients. Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abduction is proved and victim murdered soon thereafter.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping for ransom - applied to appellants read with Section 109
-
Somasundaram @ Somu vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a divergent opinion on the reliability of accomplice evidence and the legal distinction between criminal conspiracy and abetment. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, acquittal under Section 120-B IPC is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of specific overt acts in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including eyewitness testimony, confessional statements, and recovery of articles, can sustain conviction even without formal designation as accomplice. Additionally, acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct ingredients, and the presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abductors cannot explain the fate of the abducted person.
On this section: Punishment for abduction with intent to wrongfully confine; applied to convict appellants
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split decision with no single ratio decidendi. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and when such corroboration is absent and the accused are acquitted of conspiracy, conviction under abetment provisions cannot be sustained. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence can be relied upon when sufficiently corroborated by confessional statements and recovery of articles, and acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct legal requirements.
On this section: Defines kidnapping or abduction with intent to wrongfully confine; applied with Section 109
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split verdict with two divergent ratios: (1) Per Justice Gopala Gowda: Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC (abetment by conspiracy) because the latter requires proof of conspiracy as a prerequisite. Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated, cannot sustain conviction when independent evidence fails to place accused at scene of crime or establish their specific role. (2) Per Justice Arun Mishra: Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including confessions, recoveries, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction. The presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies to abductors regarding victim's fate.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping or abduction with intent to wrongfully confine
-
Iruthayaraj@iruthi& ORS. vs Home Ministry State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi is split between the two judges. Justice Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated by other accomplices, cannot sustain conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused to the crime. When the charge under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) is not proved, conviction under Section 109 (abetment by conspiracy) cannot be sustained as it requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove each accused's individual involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt through independent evidence, not merely through accomplice testimony. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by confessions of co-accused, recovery of material objects, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction even without direct evidence of the accused's presence at the scene of crime. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. The presumption that an abductor is a murderer when the victim is found dead soon after abduction can be applied to sustain conviction when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping or abducting with intent to cause wrongful confinement
-
Balamurugan @ Bala and Anr. Etc vs The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda held that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained even if the accomplice evidence is otherwise reliable. Justice Arun Mishra held that accomplice evidence can be relied upon if corroborated by confessional statements of other accused, recovery of articles, and circumstantial evidence, and that acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 when the ingredients of abetment are satisfied.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping or abducting with intent to cause wrongful confinement
-
Mohammed Faheem v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2013-11-06 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 993/2006. Raja Elango J. Quotes IPC 365. Isolates 365 ingredients: kidnapping/abduction with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine; chasing and forcing a college student into an auto at knifepoint, without evidence of intent to confine, is not 365 (324 hurt confirmed, sentence undergone). Map ipc 365 cited only. Do not successor-map ipc 365 → bns 140 (close 0.7614). Do not pad ipc 324 (already filled). Famous Chhoteylal is 363/366/376, not 365.
On this section: IPC 365 needs kidnapping or abduction with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine; force without that intent is not 365 (Mohammed Faheem).
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sohan Lal Bishnoi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to interfere with a trial court's discretionary order declining to permit video teleconference examination of a witness in a sessions trial, where the trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously, in good faith, on correct and plausible grounds, and where the witness has merely expressed partial reluctance rather than outright refusal to appear, and where the reasons for non-appearance (professional inconvenience and travel expenses) are not substantial or genuine grounds for dispensing with personal presence of witness, particularly when the trial court has already issued summons multiple times and the witness has not specifically stated inability to visit India for compelling reasons.
On this section: Kidnapping. Initial FIR registered under this section.
-
Md. Jeharul Ali vs The State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court will not re-appreciate evidence to find minor lacunas for the purpose of granting bail under Section 389 CrPC unless the conviction is patently illegal or perverse.
On this section: Substantive charges for kidnapping with common intention.
-
Pramveer @ Sonu vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for an extended period (over two years), the prosecution's investigation has resulted in an initial untraced report, and the accused has been acquitted in other criminal cases, it is just and expedient to grant regular bail subject to trial court satisfaction, without prejudging the merits of the case.
On this section: Offence of kidnapping or abducting with intent to wrongfully confine person; charge against petitioner
-
Ramdeo Verma& ORS. vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the time of framing charge or taking cognizance of an offence, an accused person has no right to produce any material or document. The right to be defended by a pleader of choice under Section 303 CrPC does not extend to producing documents at the inquiry stage. The settled law as pronounced by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi prohibits consideration of documents filed by accused at the inquiry stage, and the High Court can only consider such documents in rare and exceptional cases while exercising Section 482 jurisdiction.
On this section: Kidnapping - alleged offence in the complaint
-
Raju @ Rajendra Kumar vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person's status as a habitual offender with involvement in multiple criminal cases constitutes a significant ground for denying anticipatory bail, particularly when the charges involve serious offences such as rioting, wrongful confinement, theft, and criminal intimidation. The court's discretion in bail matters must be exercised with due regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the need to maintain public order and safety.
On this section: Kidnapping or abducting with intent to wrongfully confine - cited as one of the charges
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.
-
… Resultantly, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows: (i) A1 and A2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short), Section 365 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 387 of the IPC, Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 347 read with 109 of the IPC and under Section 364 read with Section 109 of the IPC. (ii) A3 is found to have acted upon the conspiracy of A1 and A2. He was found guilty of the offences …
-
… Resultantly, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows: (i) A1 and A2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short), Section 365 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 387 of the IPC, Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 347 read with 109 of the IPC and under Section 364 read with Section 109 of the IPC. (ii) A3 is found to have acted upon the conspiracy of A1 and A2. He was found guilty of the offences …
-
… Resultantly, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows: (i) A1 and A2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short), Section 365 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 387 of the IPC, Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 347 read with 109 of the IPC and under Section 364 read with Section 109 of the IPC. (ii) A3 is found to have acted upon the conspiracy of A1 and A2. He was found guilty of the offences …
Questions about Section 365
What have the courts held on Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code?
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana (20 May 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offence of kidnapping or abducting a person with intent to wrongfully confine; charged but conviction overturned on finding that victim accompanied accused voluntarily. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 10 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 365 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 365, section 365 IPC, section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 365 in bns and ipc 365 punishment. 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 Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana (20 May 2013).
What should I read with Section 365 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 140 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 365, 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.