CASE NAME: Ravi Das Gupta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2321 of 2013
COURT: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
DATE: 29 April 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Shri Justice Pradeep Mittal
FACTS
On 15th March 2013, a 15 and 6-month-old young girl, the prosecutrix, went missing from her home. Thus, a missing person report was registered at Police Station Badera, Maihar. During the investigation, it came to light that the appellant, Ravi Das Gupta, was also missing on the same date. Henceforth, a First Information Report was registered against the individual, predicated on suspicion, under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the prosecutrix returned home on her own on March 20, 2013, after five days and was subjected to a medical examination. The prosecutrix testified that on March 15, 2013, at 4:00 AM, she left her house on her own initiative after informing her mother. She went to the Ravidas field, met the appellant, and then travelled to Badera, Maihar, Jabalpur, and ultimately to Mumbai, with the appellant accompanying her. The prosecutrix explicitly stated in her cross-examination that the appellant did not use any force against her, nor take her away by enticement or allurement, and did not mislead her. The prosecutrix expressed that it was her own wish to marry the appellant because her parents had refused the marriage proposal. The appellant had told her that they would get married, and thus accompanied him willingly.
ISSUES
- Whether, in the absence of evidence showing the accused forced or enticed a minor to leave, merely travelling with a minor who left home voluntarily constitutes “taking” under Section 361 of the IPC?
- Whether the voluntary action of the minor to leave her home, coupled with the absence of inducement by the accused, mitigates the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 361 of IPC (Section 137(1)(b) of BNS) – Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship
- Section 363 of IPC (Section 137(2) of BNS) – Punishment for kidnapping
- Section 366 of IPC (Section 87 of BNS) – Kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage or cause her defilement
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
The Counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was legally and factually unsustainable as the prosecution failed to establish the fundamental essential elements of the offence under Section 361 IPC, which was whether the appellant “took” or “enticed” the girl out of her guardian’s keeping. Furthermore, the prosecutrix’s own irreproachable and unequivocal testimony provides that she left her house on her own wish after informing her mother on the night of the incident. The counsel argued that there was no evidence of force, allurement, inducement, or enticement by the appellant. They further elaborated that the Trial Court has committed a fundamental error of law by conflating the irrelevance of the minor’s consent with the complete dispensation of the element of ‘taking’ or ‘enticing’, which are two entirely distinct legal propositions.
RESPONDENTS:
The counsel representing the respondent-state on the panel was in support of the challenged decision and contended that because the prosecutrix was clearly a minor during the commission of the crime, the element of consent was irrelevant from the legal standpoint and that merely permitting her to accompany the appellant and traveling with him in different cities for five to six days was itself ‘taking’ under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code.
ANALYSIS
The Court found that the prosecution had “utterly failed” to prove the most basic element of the offence under Section 361 IPC. The evidence, particularly the testimonies of the prosecutrix, established that the appellant did not “take” or “entice” her. On the contrary, she initiated and moved on her own, making the appellant only a “passive recipient” of her action. An important factor in the judgment is the denial of the Trial Court’s mixing up of two separate issues:
The validity of consent: The High Court upheld that the consent of a minor is legally inconsequential.
The Act of Taking: The Court ruled that the lack of relevance of consent should not “supply the missing ingredient of ‘taking’ or ‘enticing.'”
The Court held that an accused must take or entice a minor in order to commit the crime; hence, if he did not do either, then the crime does not exist, irrespective of the age of the child. The High Court ruled that the verdict of the Trial Court was illogical since it convicted the appellant of Section 363 IPC but acquitted him of Section 366 IPC since there was no enticement or allurement. The Court observed that the prosecutrix had been consistent in asserting that “there was no wrong done to her.” In the absence of any accusation of rape or sexual assault or use of force, the Court ruled that the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years was totally disproportionate.
JUDGMENT
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh admitted the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences awarded by the Trial Court. The final decision centred on the absence of any evidence concerning “taking” or “enticing” the minor child. The Court found that there is no evidence whatsoever of the accused taking the prosecutrix away from her parents’ care or enticing her. The judgment and order dated August 20, 2013, which gave three years’ rigorous imprisonment to the accused, were quashed and set aside.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the High Court ruled that the prosecution had “utterly failed” to show the elements of the crime. The Court, by overturning the three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, reiterated the rule that criminal law does not sanction “mere passivity or voluntary accompaniment started by a minor.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: B LOUKIKA
Read the judgement copy below:
Ravi Das Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh
