Kidnapping For Illicit Intercourse
What is Kidnapping for Illicit Intercourse?
Kidnapping for Illicit Intercourse refers to the act of unlawfully abducting or taking away a woman, typically a minor or an unmarried woman, with the intent to have sexual intercourse with her against her will or without lawful consent.
It is treated as a serious criminal offence because it involves both kidnapping/abduction and sexual exploitation.
The offence typically involves force, coercion, or deceit.
The term “illicit intercourse” implies sexual relations without legal or moral sanction, often outside marriage and without consent.
Legal Provisions (General Overview)
Most Penal Codes have specific sections dealing with kidnapping/abduction with the intent to compel a woman to marry or for illicit intercourse.
The prosecution must prove that the kidnapping was done with the intention of having sexual intercourse without consent.
The victim's age, consent, and circumstances of abduction are key factors in determining guilt.
If the victim is a minor (below the age of consent), consent is irrelevant and the offence is grave.
Elements of the Offence
Kidnapping or abducting a woman or girl.
The intention or knowledge that the kidnapping is for the purpose of illicit intercourse.
The woman is taken without her consent or through coercion.
The victim’s age can aggravate the offence (especially if below the age of consent).
Important Case Laws on Kidnapping for Illicit Intercourse
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
Facts: The accused kidnapped a minor girl with the intent to have sexual intercourse with her.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the consent of a minor is irrelevant as she is incapable of giving lawful consent.
Principle: Kidnapping a minor girl for illicit intercourse is a grave offence, and mere consent is no defence.
2. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1968)
Facts: The accused was charged for kidnapping a woman with the intent of forced illicit intercourse.
Judgment: The court held that where the woman is kidnapped with the clear intention of illicit intercourse, the offence is made out irrespective of what happens later.
Principle: The intention at the time of kidnapping is crucial to establish this offence.
3. Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
Facts: The accused abducted a woman with her consent but for the purpose of illicit intercourse.
Judgment: The court held that even if the woman consents to accompany, kidnapping for illicit intercourse is an offence.
Principle: Consent to accompany does not absolve the accused if the intention was illicit intercourse.
4. Manju Devi v. State of Bihar (1980)
Facts: The accused abducted a minor girl and later forcibly had intercourse with her.
Judgment: The court emphasized that kidnapping a minor girl with intent for illicit intercourse is punishable; the sexual act adds to the gravity.
Principle: The combination of kidnapping and illicit intercourse increases the culpability.
5. Ramesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1982)
Facts: The accused kidnapped a woman by deceit for illicit intercourse.
Judgment: The court observed that kidnapping by deceit with such intent is punishable and must be viewed severely.
Principle: Deceit or fraud in kidnapping for illicit intercourse constitutes a criminal offence.
6. Kamal v. State of Rajasthan (1991)
Facts: The accused kidnapped a girl and kept her confined for illicit intercourse.
Judgment: The court held that confinement or detention to facilitate illicit intercourse constitutes kidnapping for that purpose.
Principle: Kidnapping includes confinement and detention for the purpose of illicit intercourse.
7. State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2003)
Facts: The accused kidnapped a woman with intent to marry forcibly and have illicit intercourse.
Judgment: The court held that kidnapping for the purpose of marriage coupled with illicit intercourse is punishable under both kidnapping and rape laws.
Principle: Kidnapping for forced marriage with illicit intercourse intention is a compounded offence.
Summary of Key Principles from Cases
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh | Consent of minor is irrelevant; kidnapping minor for illicit intercourse is grave. |
| Bhagwan Singh v. Rajasthan | Intention at kidnapping is key to prove the offence. |
| Raghunath v. Maharashtra | Consent to accompany does not negate offence if intent is illicit. |
| Manju Devi v. Bihar | Kidnapping and intercourse on a minor aggravates offence. |
| Ramesh v. Madhya Pradesh | Kidnapping by deceit with intent for illicit intercourse is punishable. |
| Kamal v. Rajasthan | Confinement for illicit intercourse is kidnapping. |
| State of Kerala v. Rajesh | Kidnapping for forced marriage and illicit intercourse is compound offence. |
Additional Notes:
Consent of the woman: If the woman is a minor, her consent is legally irrelevant. For adults, consent may be a factor but if obtained through coercion or deceit, it is invalid.
Distinction from Simple Kidnapping: The key is the intention to have illicit intercourse; kidnapping for other purposes (like ransom) falls under different offences.
Sexual intercourse following kidnapping often leads to charges of rape or sexual assault in addition to kidnapping.
RELATED Blog
0 comments