Site navigation

“A bare perusal of the relevant legal provisions, show that consent of the minor is immaterial for…

The observation was made in Anversinh v. State of Gujarat. For kidnapping from lawful guardianship under section 361 IPC (now section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,…

Choose your answer

“A bare perusal of the relevant legal provisions, show that consent of the minor is immaterial for purposes of Section 361 IPC. Indeed, as borne out through various other provisions in IPC and other laws like the Contract Act, 1872, minors are deemed incapable of giving lawful consent. Section 361 IPC, particularly, goes beyond this simple presumption. It bestows the ability to make crucial decisions regarding a minor’s physical safety upon his/her guardians. Therefore, 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.” In which of the following cases has the Supreme Court of India made this important observation?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

The observation was made in Anversinh v. State of Gujarat. For kidnapping from lawful guardianship under section 361 IPC (now section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), a minor’s willingness or romantic attachment does not replace the lawful guardian’s consent when the accused takes or entices the minor away. The Court found active inducement in that case, distinguishing situations in which a minor leaves without the accused’s assistance or enticement.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic