The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that a threat of suicide used to compel a minor girl to accompany an accused constitutes “enticement” and amounts to kidnapping under law.
Justice Shreeram Shirsat delivered the judgment on February 16. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was also affirmed.
Suicide Threat Amounted to Inducement and Enticement
The case arose from the testimony of the victim. She stated that the appellant had asked her to meet him at the Panaji Bus Stand on December 11, 2021. According to her evidence, he warned that he would commit suicide if she did not comply.
The Court noted that the victim did not leave her house voluntarily. Instead, she acted out of fear that the appellant might harm himself. Therefore, Justice Shirsat observed that the accused had influenced the minor’s decision through emotional coercion.
The Court recorded:
“Therefore, what emerges out of the categorical admissions given by the victim, is that she has left the house not on her own accord but at the instance of the Appellant and the Appellant by putting the victim under fear that he would commit suicide, if she does not come, has induced and enticed her to leave the house.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the appellant’s conduct created fear in the victim’s mind. This fear led her to leave the lawful custody of her guardian. Such inducement, the Court said, satisfied the legal requirement of “enticement” under Section 363 IPC.
Forcible Removal Not Necessary to Prove Kidnapping
Addressing the legal threshold for kidnapping, the Court clarified that physical force is not mandatory. The prosecution is not required to prove forcible removal from guardianship.
Instead, it is sufficient to show that the accused “caused” the victim to leave lawful custody. This can be established by demonstrating influence, fear, or coercion affecting the victim’s mind.
Justice Shirsat observed:
“To establish the offence, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Appellant should have forcibly taken her out of the custody of the lawful guardian, but that she was ‘caused to go’ by the influence which was created in her mind by the Appellant and which indeed caused her to leave the custody of the lawful guardian is itself sufficient…”
Moreover, the Court held that emotional duress had weighed heavily on the victim. As a result, she left her mother’s custody due to the appellant’s actions.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the offence under Section 363 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the Case
According to the prosecution, the victim was 16 years old at the relevant time. The appellant was 32 years old.
After she accompanied him, the appellant took her to Ahmedabad. There, he arranged a rented room. Subsequently, on January 3, 2022, the victim contacted her mother by phone. She informed her that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions.
She also expressed her desire to return home to Panaji. Following the complaint, the police arrested the appellant. A Fast Track Court later convicted him and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment along with fines.
High Court Upholds Conviction
Justice Shirsat found the victim’s testimony to be reliable and confidence-inspiring. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Appearance
Advocate Sahil Sardessai appeared for the appellant.
Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai represented the State.
Case Title: Shobhit Kumar vs State
