NDLI: Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860: ss.361 and 366 – Kidnapping Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: ss.361 and 366 – Kidnapping – Victim- minor girl aged 16 years recovered from custody of appellant – Appellant admited to having established sexual intercourse and of having an intention to marry the victim – Conviction under ss.361 and 366 – Held: For establishing offence of kidnapping, there should be an act of enticing or taking, in addition to establishing the child’s minority (being sixteen for boys and eighteen for girls) and care/keep of a lawful guardian – Such ‘enticement’ need not be direct or immediate in time and can also be through subtle actions like winning over the affection of a minor girl – In the instant case, besides the fact that the victim was recovered from custody of appellant, he also admitted to having established sexual intercourse and of having an intention to marry the prosecutrix – The testimonies of witnesses made out a clear case of enticement – The evidence further unequivocally suggested that the appellant induced the prosecutrix to reach at a designated place to accompany him – Appellant failed to propound how the elements of kidnapping were not made out – His core contention that in view of consensual affair between them and the prosecutrix joined his company voluntarily cannot be acceded to given the unambiguous language of the statute as the prosecutrix was admittedly below 18 years of age – A bare perusal of the relevant legal provisions, show that consent of the minor is immaterial for purposes of s.361 – A minor girl’s infatuation with her alleged kidnapper cannot by itself be allowed as a defence, for the same would amount to surreptitiously undermining the protective essence of the offence of kidnapping – Similarly, s.366 postulates that once the prosecution leads evidence to show that the kidnapping was with the intention/knowledge to compel marriage of the girl or to force/induce her to have illicit intercourse, the enhanced punishment of 10 years as provided thereunder would stand attracted – It was not the appellant’s case that he had no active role to play in the occurrence – Rather, the eye-witnesses testified to the contrary which illustrated how appellant had drawn the prosecutrix out of the custody of her parents – There is little to suggest that she was aware of the full purport of her actions or that she possessed the mental acuities and maturity to take care of herself – In addition to being young, she was not much educated – Courts below were right in observing that the consent of the minor would be no defence to a charge of kidnapping – No fault can thus be found with the conviction of the appellant under ss.361 and 366 of IPC. Sentence/Sentencing: There cannot be any mechanical reduction of sentence unless all relevant factors have been weighed and whereupon the Court finds it to be a case of gross injustice, hardship, or palpably capricious award of an unreasonable sentence – It would thus depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether a superior Court should interfere with, and resultantly enhance or reduce the sentence – In the instant case, it is apparent that no force was used in the act of kidnapping – There was no pre-planning, use of any weapon or any vulgar motive – Although not a determinative factor, the young age of the accused at the time of the incident cannot be overlooked – He was no older than about 18 or 19 years at the time of the offence and admittedly it was a case of a love affair – His actions at such a young and impressionable age, therefore, ought to be treated with hope for reform, and not punitively – Both the victim and the appellant are now in their forties; are productive members of society and have settled down in life with their respective spouses and families – It, therefore, might not further the ends of justice to relegate the appellant back to jail at this stage –Given these multiple unique circumstances, the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded by the courts below, is disproportionate to the facts of the this case – The concerns of both the society and the victim can be respected, and the twin principles of deterrence and correction would be served by reducing the appellant’s sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone by him
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 16
Petitioner	Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala
Respondent	State Of Gujarat
SCR	[2021] 1 S.C.R. 249
Judgement Date	2021-01-12
Case Number	1919

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat

Please Log-in to view this content

State of U.p. Vs. Munshi

Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Haryana Vs. Raja Ram

State of U.p. Vs. Chhoteylal

Murugan @ Settu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan @ Hemant Janardhan Wankhede

Mahendra Subhashbhai Vankhede Vs. The State of Gujarat Etc.

State of Rajasthan Vs. Roshan Khan & Ors.

Sat Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and Another

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of U.p. Vs. Munshi

Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Haryana Vs. Raja Ram

State of U.p. Vs. Chhoteylal

Murugan @ Settu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan @ Hemant Janardhan Wankhede

Mahendra Subhashbhai Vankhede Vs. The State of Gujarat Etc.

State of Rajasthan Vs. Roshan Khan & Ors.

Sat Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and Another

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat