RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

VI SEMESTER

CRIMINAL LAW PROJECT

CASE COMMENT ON

STATE OF HARYANA V. RAJA RAM

AIR 1973 SC 819

Submitted to: Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Assistant Professor of Law

Submitted by: Mohitpal Singh (21243)

Date: 10nd April, 2024

This is to certify that the case comment on the topic “State of Haryana v. Raja Ram” and
submitted to Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab is an original and bonafide piece
of research work, that was carried out under my supervision and was required for the 6th
semester of B.A.LL.B (Hons.).

Mr. Anubhav Kumar

Assistant Professor of Law

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

The successful completion of my case comment on “State of Haryana v. Raja Ram” in the
sixth semester of the five-year course required a lot of guidance and assistance from many
people and I feel exceptionally lucky and privilege to receive them in the right manner and
time. All these factors contributed in helping me to complete my project on time.

I would like to express my gratitude towards our esteemed Vice-Chancellor, Professor (Dr.)
Jai Shankar Singh for providing me with an opportunity to demonstrate my talent and intellect
in a prestigious university like RGNUL and learning a great deal from this project.

Secondly, I'd like to thank, Mr. Anubhav Kumar, our Professor of Criminal Law for providing
the necessary support and guidance to complete the project successfully. I am extremely
grateful to sir for discussing the project with us in class and clearing up any confusion we had.

Finally, I'd like to thank the staff members of the I.T. department and the library at RGNUL
for providing me with the access to the resources of the library, without which my research
would not have been possible.

Mohitpal Singh
 INDEX

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE.................................................................................................. 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................... 3

INDEX....................................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5

FACTS OF THE CASE ........................................................................................................... 7

ISSUES INVOLVED ............................................................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT .............................................................................. 10

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT ........................................................................... 12

JUDGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 13

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 14
 INTRODUCTION

Law is a system of regulations enacted by the government for the benefit of the people in order
to ensure public request and peace, as well as the preservation of value and decency among
inhabitants. Law, like many regulations, may be divided into substantive and procedural
categories based on its explanation and tendency. Substantive law governs a person's rights,
liabilities, duties, and obligations. The procedural law specifies the method to be used to carry
out the arrangements outlined in substantive law.

The Indian Penal Code is one of the most unusual and outstanding Penal Law Codes,
addressing a wide range of wrongdoings, lengths, nature, and punishments. One of the major
offenses it addresses is abduction. The term "kidnapping" is derived from the word 'kid'
meaning child and 'napping' to take. As a result, the term literally means "child stealing".
Kidnapping under the statute is not limited to child stealing. It has taken on a broader definition,
referring to the taking away of a human being without his or her consent, or with the approval
of someone legally authorized to grant consent on their behalf.1

Kidnapping laws date back three thousand years, when it was established in ancient Jewish law
that "anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must
be put to death". 2The first ancient English kidnapping legislation was known as "plagium,"
and it was punished by death. The word "kidnapping" is thought to have first appeared in
English law in the late 1600s, referring to the abduction of people and their subsequent
transportation to North American colonies for enslavement. In the late 1700s, William
Blackstone defined kidnapping as "the forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman,
or child from their own country, and sending them into another."3

According to Section 359 of the IPC, kidnapping involves seizing or enslaving someone against
their will for criminal reasons such as ransom or injury. The provision divides abduction into
two categories: kidnapping from India (provision 360) and kidnapping from lawful
guardianship (Section 361). According to Section 360, if someone removes or carries away a

1
Staff, Tld. “KIDNAPPING.” The Law Dictionary, 4 Nov. 2011, Staff, Tld. “KIDNAPPING.” The Law
Dictionary, 4 Nov. 2011,
thelawdictionary.org/kidnapping/#:~:text=Definition%20%26%20Citations%3A,and%20sending%20them%20i
nto%20another.
2
Kidnapping - Origins of the Offense in English Law. law.jrank.org/pages/1552/Kidnapping-Origins-offense-in-
English-law.html.
3
ibid.
person from India without their consent or the approval of a person authorized to agree on their
behalf, this constitutes abduction from India under the IPC.4 Section 361 of the IPC defines
"kidnapping from lawful guardianship" as the act of removing or luring a juvenile or a person
of unsound mind from the custody of a lawful guardian without their agreement. There is one
exemption to Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the exception, the person
who takes or entices the child may be able to demonstrate that they did so in good faith, with
the intention of safeguarding the minor's person from immediate harm. In such circumstances,
the offender will not face charges of abduction from authorized guardianship. However, the
accused bears the burden of showing such good faith. It is vital to emphasize that this
exemption only applies when the person taking the child does not have legal right to do so. 5If
the person removing the youngster has legal authorization, the exemption does not apply.
Furthermore, it is not essential to demonstrate that the stealing or luring was accomplished via
force or deception. Persuasion by the accused person that results in a willingness on the part of
the minor to be removed from the custody of the authorized guardian would be sufficient to
trigger the section. The major goal of this section is to protect minors and those with unsound
minds from being exploited or injured. It seeks to defend the rights of legitimate guardians who
are tasked with caring for and having custody of their wards.

4
Aishwaryasandeep, and Aishwaryasandeep. “Kidnapping - Aishwarya Sandeep- Parenting and Law.” Aishwarya
Sandeep- Parenting and Law - Simplifying Law for Common Man and Students, 14 Oct. 2023,
https://aishwaryasandeep.in/kidnapping-3/.
5
Admin. “Kidnapping and Abduction in IPC; Complete Explanation.” Century Law Firm Blog, 15 Aug. 2023,
www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/kidnapping-and-abduction.
 FACTS OF THE CASE

The case of State of Haryana v. Raja Ram is one of the landmark judgements on the offence of
kidnapping with different intricacies involved in the case. In this case, the prosecutrix, Santosh
Rani (aged 14 years), daughter of Narain Das is a resident of village situated in Karnal. Narain
Das once paid a visit to Jai Narain with his two boys in order to cure them. After Jai Narain
treated his boys, Narain Das came to regard him as his Guru and developed a strong confidence
in him. Soon after, Jai Narain began making regular visits to the prosecutrix's home, casting an
evil eye on her. He encouraged her to follow him by convincing her that, despite being forced
to work at her parents' home, her poor parents did not provide her with adequate food and
clothing. He vowed to keep her as a queen, with fine clothing, decent food, and a servant at her
disposal. On one occasion, Narain Dass saw Jai Narain conversing to the Santosh Rani and
became suspicious, so he asked Jai Narain not to visit his house again. He also warned his
daughter and told her to be free with Jai Narain.

After being barred from visiting Narain Dass's home, Jai Narain began delivering messages to
the prosecutrix via Raja Ram, the respondent, whose home is some 5 or 6 km distant. Raja Ram
called Santosh Rani on April 4, 1968, and requested her to join him to Jai Narain's residence.
Raja Ram's daughter, Sona, who appeared to be close with the prosecutrix, went to the latter's
residence and sent a message directing her to Raja Ram's house at midnight. The prosecutrix
went to Raja Ram's residence on the night of April 4 and Raja Ram led her to the Bhishamwala
well. Jai Narain was not present at the well during that time. After leaving the prosecutrix, Raja
Ram went to collect Jai Narain, and handed over the prosecutrix to him. On that fatal night,
Narain Das appears to have left the village for Karnal, while his wife slept in the kitchen. On
the day of the occurrence, the prosecutrix and her two younger sisters were sleeping in the
courtyard. In these circumstances, the prosecutrix went to Raja Ram's residence, from which
she was taken to the well.

The brother of Santosh Rani found her missing and conveyed the same to other member of the
family. After waiting for a reasonable period of time, the father of the prosecutrix filed First
Information Report (F.I.R) with the officer in charge. A confirmed suspicion was casted on Jai
Narain who was found out to be missing. It was also stated by Narain Das that he has warned
Jai Narain from visiting the former’s house. On the day of 13th April, Narain Das identified his
daughter and Jai Narain was taken into custody.
After thorough investigation, Jai Narain and Raja Ram were charged under Section 366 and
376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Initially, the case was taken up by the Session Judge who
convicted both of the accused. In response to which, an appeal was filed in High Court. The
High Court while upheld the conviction of Jai Narain but acquitted Raja Ram. The High Court
based its decision on the word ‘take’ used in Section 361 of IPC. As per the Court, ‘take’ refers
to want of wish and absence of desire of the person taken. The Court on the basis of the facts
held that Santosh Rani voluntary accompanied Raja Ram and there was absence of any
coercion or threat on the part of Raja Ram. The High Court stated that, “The girl reached at
that odd hour to carry into effect her own wish of being in the company of Jai Narain, appellant.
In view of these facts, it could not be held that Raja Ram was guilty of the act of either taking
away the girl or seducing her out of the keeping of her parents.” The present suit in discussion
is a result of the State’s appeal against the acquittal of Raja Ram.
 ISSUES INVOLVED

v Whether Raja Ram could be held liable for the offence of kidnapping from lawful
guardianship under Section 361 of Indian Penal Code.
v Whether willingly going with someone constitute kidnapping under Section 361 of the
Indian Penal Code.
 ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT

In its appeal against the High Court's decision to acquit Raja Ram, the State of Haryana
vehemently argues that the High Court erred in law when it construed Section 361 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) and rendered a grave decision. The State contends that even if Santosh Rani,
the 14-year-old victim, may have left her home voluntarily, Raja Ram's actions nevertheless
qualify as kidnapping from legitimate supervision under this clause.

According to the State, the High Court only considered the physical aspects of kidnapping and
that a conviction under Section 361 requires force or abduction. The State claims that this view
is too limited and ignores the important component of persuasion or inducement. Regardless
of their initial willingness, minor children are protected against being manipulated or enticed
for inappropriate purposes by Section 361.

The State painstakingly outlines a sequence of occurrences that show Raja Ram's direct
involvement in luring Santosh Rani away from her father, who was her legal guardian. Raja
Ram acted as a go-between after Santosh Rani's father forbade Jai Narain from visiting their
home. He is said to have passed along messages from Jai Narain to Santosh Rani, creating a
bond that finally caused her to leave. The state draws attention to Raja Ram's purported
visitation to Santosh Rani's residence on the day of her abduction. They contend that this visit
was more than just social; rather, it was a chance to further convince Santosh Rani to depart
with him. The State's case is further strengthened by Raja Ram's arrangement of the scheduled
meeting at Bhishamwala well. It implies a purposeful move to take advantage of the late hour
when the family would be asleep, reducing the likelihood of prompt assistance.

The State emphasises that the minor's permission to leave is not relevant under Section 361.
The guardian's lack of consent is the main point of emphasis. In this instance, it was evident
that Santosh Rani's father disagreed with Jai Narain's behaviour and relationship with his
daughter. Raja Ram deliberately circumvented the guardian's authority by facilitating contact
and setting up the midnight meeting.

The State contends that luring a kid in with force or deceit is not the sole tactic. The promise
of meeting Jai Narain and Raja Ram's purportedly persuasive remarks would have been
sufficient to sway Santosh Rani, a young and possibly impressionable girl. The State may even
use pertinent psychological theories to demonstrate how persuasive language might influence
a minor's judgement.

The State uses analogies to English common law to support its position. Reg. v. Job Timmins6
and Reg. v. Robb7 are cited as instances when the kidnapping crime was committed
notwithstanding the minor's desire to participate. These instances demonstrate that under
comparable statutes, moral influence or prior persuasion may be illegal.

The State highlights the important function that Section 361 fulfils. It protects guardians' rights
to manage their wards' behaviour as well as the rights of minor children to be free from
exploitation. The State argued that Raja Ram's acts, in luring Santosh Rani away from her
father's care and protection, directly undermined this control.

The State emphasises the seriousness of the situation in its conclusion. They contend that Raja
Ram's acquittal is an egregious injustice. In accordance with Section 361 of the IPC, the State
asks the Court to step in and restore the guardianship and protection of minors.

6
169 E R 1260
7
176 E 466
 ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT

The counsel representing Raja Ram argued that even if the prosecution's case is proven true
based on the prosecutrix's own evidence, as well as the testimony of Raja Ram's mother Tara
Wanti, father Narain Dass, and brother Abinash Kumar, Raja Ram cannot be found guilty of
any crime under Section 366 of the IPC.

The defence said that lower court acquittals shouldn't be arbitrarily overturned by higher courts.
To bolster their argument, they cited an undisclosed ruling from this court in the case of
Shantanjan Majumdar v. Abhoyananda Brahmachari. Despite appealing the ruling, the
complainant (accuser) was unable to persuade the court that a significant injustice had
occurred. Thus, they are precluded from bringing up fresh points of contention that they did
not bring up previously.
 JUDGEMENT

The prosecutrix, Santosh Rani, was kidnapped by Raja Ram from her father's legitimate care,
the court found. The following factual findings provided the basis for the court's decision:

(1) That Jai Narain attempted to get close to the prosecutrix and entice her to move in with
him;
(2) That after her father objected and asked Jai Narain not to visit his home, Jai Narain began
communicating with the prosecutrix via Raja Ram, respondent;
(3) On April 4, at around noon, Raja Ram went to see the prosecutrix at her home and asked
her to come to his house so that he could deliver Jai Narain's message to her;
(4) Later that day, Sona was sent by her father to the prosecutrix's home to pick her up, and
there she learned that Jai Narain would arrive that evening and take her away;
(5) As a result, Raja Ram asked the prosecutrix to come to his home at around midnight so that
she could be entrusted to Jar Narain.

According to the court's ruling, these findings proved that Raja Ram had asked or cajoled the
prosecutrix to leave her father's home and accompany him to Jai Narain. Raja Ram claimed
that the prosecutrix's permission to accompany him was irrelevant, but the court disagreed,
ruling that Section 361 of the IPC makes the minor's agreement irrelevant.

Raja Ram's claim that the English law judgements the appellant State cited were inapplicable
because they used the phrase "take out of the possession" rather than "out of the keeping," as
used in Section 361 of the IPC, was similarly rejected by the court. The English precedents,
the court decided, were nevertheless pertinent because they interpreted the phrase "take out of
the possession" to cover situations in which the minor was in the parent's custody, care, or
control at the time of the taking.

Ultimately, the court determined that Raja Ram had abducted the prosecutrix in violation of
Section 361 of the IPC and imposed a harsh penalty of one and a half years in jail along with a
fine of Rs. 500.
 CONCLUSION

The Indian Penal Code's (IPC) Section 361 and the idea of removing a juvenile from their legal
care are at issue in this case. The main point of contention is whether or not the prosecutrix,
the child, was willing to leave her house with Raja Ram, the accused, negating the offence.

Raja Ram's acts were successfully used by the prosecution to claim that they qualified as
abduction under Section 361. They proved Raja Ram to be:

• He served as a go-between for the minor and Jai Narain, who had made an earlier attempt
to entice her.
• Mainly assisted in the minor's midnight departure to meet Jai Narain.
• Convinced the minor to leave her house by sending texts and setting up a rendezvous.

Here, what matters most is that the minor was persuaded to leave her guardian's care by Raja
Ram's conduct rather than by physical force. The minor's consent is not relevant under Section
361 the court stressed.

The minor's voluntary act of joining Raja Ram, according to the defence, disproves kidnapping.
They emphasised the minor's purported lack of compulsion and the fact that Raja Ram did not
physically remove her from her house.

But the court dismissed this claim. The fact that Section 361 preserves the guardian's authority
and prevents children from being influenced for "improper purposes" was emphasised. The
court made a clear distinction between letting a kid go with someone and coercing them into
leaving the care of their guardian.

The minor's voluntary act of joining Raja Ram, according to the defence, disproves kidnapping.
They emphasised the minor's purported lack of compulsion and the fact that Raja Ram did not
physically remove her from her house.

According to Section 361 of the IPC, Raja Ram was found guilty of kidnapping by the court.
This decision emphasises how crucial it is to shield children from being coerced or duped into
potentially dangerous circumstances. The court's view highlights that:

• The guardian's authority over the minor is a legally protected right;

In summary, the ruling rendered by the court in this instance reinforces the legislative structure
that guards against the exploitation of minors. Nonetheless, continued debates and prospective
changes can improve Section 361's interpretation and handle how manipulation is changing,
especially in the digital era. Law enforcement, the public, and legal experts can collaborate to
make a safer environment for kids by putting the above recommendations