7 Major Differences Between Kidnapping and Abduction

7 Major Differences Between Kidnapping and Abduction are

1. Definition:- According to section 359 of IPC 1860, "Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship."

Section 360 of IPC, states," Kidnapping from India-  Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India. "

Section 361 of IPC lays down "Kidnapping from lawful guardianship-  Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship."

Section 362 of IPC defines Abduction as "Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person."

2. Age :- The offence of kidnapping is committed only in respect of a minor under 16 years of age in case of a male and under 18 years in case of a female or a person of unsound mind.

Abduction may be committed in respect of a person of any age.

3. Lawful Guardianship :- In kidnapping the person kidnapped is removed out of lawful guardianship. Therefore there can be no kidnapping of an orphan.

Abduction refers to the person kidnapped. The person may not be under the guardianship of any body

4. Consent :- In kidnapping consent of the person taken or enticed is immaterial because they are not competent to give a valid consent.

In abduction consent of a person moved, if freely and voluntarily given, condones the offence.

5. Means :- Simple taking or enticing away of a minor or a person of unsound mind constitutes kidnapping.

In abduction material means like force, compulsion or deceitful means must have been used

6. Intention :- In kidnapping the intention of the kidnapper is wholly irrelevant.

In abduction the intention of the offender is an important factor to constitute the offence because abduction by itself is not an offence unless committed with certain intent as specified in section 364 of IPC 1860 and onwards.

7. Offence and Act :- Kidnapping is a substantive offence.

Abduction is only an auxiliary act, not punishable by itself, but only made Criminal only when it is done with one or the other of the intents specified in section 364 of IPC and onwards.

References
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal- THE INDIAN PENAL CODE-33rd Edition
Criminal Law: Cases and Materials - Sixth Edition - K.D.Gaur
Prof. S.N.Misra - INDIAN PENAL CODE- 15th  Edition

Related Topics

7 Major Differences Between Wrongful restraint and Wrongful confinement 

5  Major differences between Riot and Affray

5 major Differences Between banker and money lender

Five Difference between Protectorate and Vassal State

Difference between Interpretation and construction

Read More

5 Major Differences Between Riot and Affray

5  Major differences between Riot and Affray are

1. Definition :- According to section 146 of the IPC 1860 " Whenever force or violence is used by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting."

According to section 159 of the IPC 1860 , "when two or more persons by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray."

2. Place :-  A Riot may take place anywhere i.e.,both at a  public public and a private place.
An affray cannot be committed in a private place.

3. Number of persons :-  A Riot can be committed by at least five persons.
An affray can be committed by two or more persons

4. Unlawful Assembly :- Rioters first constitute an unlawful assembly, an affrayer need not be so.

5. Punishment:- According to section 147 of the IPC, "Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

According to section 160 of the IPC  "Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both."

Read More

5 major differences between banker and money lender with example

Banker :- Banker may also be termed as bank. Both terms are synonymous and may be used in place of other.

According to professor H.L.A.Hart, " a banker is one who in the ordinary course of his business honours cheques, drawn upon him by persons from and for whom he receives money on current accounts."

The term banker holds the following features

1. The banker accepts deposit of money from anyone who offers his money for such purpose.

2. After accepting money they usually lend or invest such deposit.

3. The deposited money should be repayable to the depositor on demand or according to the agreement reached between depositor and banker.

4. Deposits are withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise

5. They maintain the current account or other records of similar nature in which names of the customer and deposits are entered.

So it obvious that receiving money from customers and repaying it by honouring their cheques as and when required is one function which distinguishes banking business from money lending.

Example :- Sahara Company is a para banking institution and is not a banker

5 major differences between banker and money lender

1. Acceptance of deposit :- Banks accepts deposit from the public.

Money lenders cannot accept deposit from the public except from their relatives.

2. Lending of Money :- Banks lend money out of the deposits which it has accepted from their customers.

Money lenders lends money from their own resources.

3. Monetary help :- Scheduled banks can get loan on securities from the Central Bank in times of crisis.

Money lenders cannot get loans from the Central Bank.

4. Chequable deposits :- Banks provides the facility of cheques by customers are allowed to withdraw money at any time.

A money lender if in any case accepts deposits, they are not chequable.

5. Application of the Act :- All the banks in India are subject to the provision of Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 and The Banking Regulation Act 1949.
These Acts do not apply to money lenders.


References:-
The Law of Banking,Volume 1 (1993)
R.N.Chaudhury, Banking Laws

Read More

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre in a PIL filed for abolishing the present practice of executing a death sentence by hanging

A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra,Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud on October 6,2017 issued notice to the Central Government in a PIL for abolishing the present practice of executing a death sentence by hanging.

On 12/09/2017 Rishi Malhotra a Supreme Court advocate filed a PIL in the Supreme Court for abolishing the present practice of executing a death sentence by hanging which involves “prolonged pain and suffering” and to replace it with intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution or gas chamber in which death is just a matter of minutes

Acting on the PIL, the Supreme Court observed that the legislature can consider amending the provision of CrPC 1973, relating to death sentence which under section 354(5) provides   “when any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead” 

The Court also considers that convict who in law has to face death sentence shall die in peace and not in pain since nothing can be equal to painless death.

But the Court left the mode of death sentence to be decided by the legislature.  

Read the petition filed by Rishi Malhotra  here

Read More

"A person repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child with sexual intent can be said to have committed an offence under Section 11 of the POCSO Act" Bombay HC Order

The Bombay High Court on 27th September 2017 has ruled that

"If a person with sexual intent repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through other means, then he can be said to have committed an offence defined under Section 11 of the POCSO Act"

Bombay High Court

In the instant case( CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1947 OF 2017 MANJU TEJBAL VISHWAKARMA AND ANR. V/s.
THE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN & DIU) the petitioners filed a writ petition for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No.20 of 2016 pending against them on the file of the learned Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, at Daman

The learned advocate for the Petitioner argued  that  the  FIR  itself  is hearsay  and cannot constitute as admissible evidence for framing Charge against the accused persons i.e. petitioners.

The learned advocate for the petitioners, further argued that the allegation against petitioner no.2 / accused no.2  Valji Vadher are as vague as it is only averred that he had bad eye on the victim girl and therefore, this vague statement cannot make out an offence under Section 11 of the POCSO Act.  At any rate, such statement cannot be considered as evidence sufficient to frame Charge for the offence punishable under Section 11 and made punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

In giving judgement the Court find it appropriate to produce provisions Section 11 of the POCSO Act, which reads thus :

11. Sexual harassment : A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent­
(i)utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or

(ii)  makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or

(iii)  shows any  object to a child  in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or

(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or

(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic,film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or

(vi) entices  a child  for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor.

The Court held that

"In context of the instant case, it needs to be mentioned that if a person with sexual intent repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through other means, then he can be said to have committed an offence defined under Section 11 of the POCSO Act.  The question whether the act was with sexual intent is a question of fact which needs to be adjudicated on appreciation of evidence   adduced by the prosecution."

The Court also held that

"In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she has stated that petitioner no.2 Valji Vadher always used to see her with bad intention.  Watching a female child with sexual intent comes under the mischief covered  by Section 11  of the  POCSO  Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against petitioner no.2 Valji Vadher for the offence as defined by Section 11 and made punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act."

The Court finds that

In the instant case, material on record shows that there are no averments that petitioner no.1, who is mother of the victim female child, has done any act against the victim, who is her daughter, with any sexual intent, and therefore, Section 11 of the POCSO Act made punishable under Section 12 thereof is infact not invoked by the prosecution against petitioner no.1

In the result, the Court held that proceedings in Special Case No.20 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, cannot be quashed.

Read More