Justice Shreeram Shirsat of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Shobhit Kumar v. State (2026), ruled that a man’s threat to end his life if a minor girl did not go with him amounts to “enticement” within the meaning of Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court sustained the accused’s conviction under Section 363 (kidnapping) and Section 376 (rape) of the IPC, along with the applicable provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It also affirmed the sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Fast Track Court.
Background
1. The prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 16 years, residing at Panaji, Goa, at the relevant time.
2. The accused, aged approximately 32 years, contacted the prosecutrix and called upon her to meet him at the Panaji Bus Stand on 11 December 2021.
3. It is alleged that the accused conveyed to the prosecutrix that in the event of her refusal to meet him, he would commit suicide, thereby exerting emotional pressure upon her.
4. Because she was afraid that the accused might harm himself, the girl left her house without telling or taking permission from her guardian.
5. The accused then took her to Ahmedabad, where he had already arranged a rented room for them to stay.
6. On 3 January 2022, the girl called her mother and informed her that the accused had physical relations with her several times and that she wanted to come back home.
7. After receiving the complaint, the police arrested the accused.
8. The Fast Track Court found him guilty and sentenced him to 10 years in prison along with fines.
9. The accused later challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court.
Whether a threat of suicide made to a minor girl, with the intention of forcing her to leave the lawful custody of her guardian, can be considered as “enticement” under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, and thus amount to the offence of kidnapping.
Court’s Observations
Suicide Threat as “Enticement”
The Court noted that the accused’s warning that he would end his life if the minor did not accompany him amounted to a conscious and calculated form of inducement.
It was observed that the prosecutrix did not leave her residence voluntarily; rather, her decision was shaped by the emotional pressure and psychological influence created by the accused.
The Court clarified that for an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not essential to demonstrate physical force or direct compulsion.
What must be established is that the minor was persuaded or influenced to leave the lawful custody of her guardian due to the conduct of the accused.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that emotional coercion through a suicide threat can fall within the scope of “enticement” under the law.
Emotional Duress Sufficient for Kidnapping
1. The Court observed that inducement does not necessarily require the use of physical force or violence.
2. It held that psychological pressure or emotional manipulation can also amount to enticement within the meaning of Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Court clarified that threats which generate fear or compel a minor to act against her free will are legally sufficient to attract the offence of kidnapping.
4. Thus, emotional coercion, even in the absence of physical compulsion, satisfies the requirement of “enticement” under the provision.
Victim’s Testimony Held Reliable
1. The Court found the statement of the prosecutrix to be reliable and worthy of belief.
2. It observed that her testimony was clear, consistent, and inspired confidence.
3. The Court noted that her evidence showed she left her mother’s custody only because she was afraid that the accused might harm himself.
4. Therefore, her version of events was accepted as truthful and sufficient to support the prosecution’s case.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it affirmed the conviction under Section 363 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Kidnapping under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 137)
1. About the Provision
Section 137 of the BNS defines and punishes the offence of kidnapping. It recognises two types of kidnapping:
(A) Kidnapping from India
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
A. Kidnapping from India
A person commits kidnapping from India if:
He takes or sends any person outside the territory of India,
Without that person’s consent, or
Without the consent of someone legally authorised to give consent on that person’s behalf.
The essential element is removal beyond India’s borders without valid consent.
B. Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship
A person commits this offence if:
He takes or entices a child or a person of unsound mind,
Out of the custody of their lawful guardian,
Without the guardian’s consent.
Physical force is not necessary — even enticement or persuasion is sufficient.
Meaning of “Lawful Guardian”
The term “lawful guardian” includes:
Any person legally responsible for the care or custody of the child or person of unsound mind.
It is not limited only to biological parents.
Exception
This provision does not apply when:
A person, in good faith, believes he is the father of an illegitimate child, or
He genuinely believes he has lawful custody rights,
Provided that the act is not done for an immoral or illegal purpose.
Good faith + absence of unlawful intention are necessary for protection under this exception.
Punishment
Whoever commits kidnapping (either from India or from lawful guardianship):
May be punished with imprisonment up to 7 years, and
Shall also be liable to fine.
Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Provision Related to Rape
Section 64 of the BNS prescribes the punishment for the offence of rape. Earlier, this offence was covered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
General Punishment – Section 64(1)
The minimum punishment is 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
It may extend to imprisonment for life.
The offender is also liable to pay a fine.
Aggravated Forms – Section 64(2)
Sub-section (2) lists special situations where rape is treated as more serious.
In such cases, stricter punishment is provided due to the gravity of the offence.
Section 64(2)(h) – Rape of a Pregnant Woman
This clause applies when a person commits rape knowing that the woman is pregnant.
The punishment is rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment (for the remainder of natural life), along with fine.
Reason for Harsher Punishment
The law treats rape of a pregnant woman as an aggravated offence.
It recognises the increased vulnerability of a pregnant victim.
It also considers possible harm to both the woman and her unborn child.
Legislative Intention
By placing this offence under Section 64(2) instead of 64(1), the legislature shows its intention to impose stricter punishment in such serious circumstances.
Knowledge of pregnancy indicates greater blameworthiness on the part of the accused.
