Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Yt

    Uploaded by

    chirag
    Raja Ram was convicted of kidnapping 14-year-old Santosh Rani from her father's home to deliver her to Jai Narain. The Supreme Court upheld Raja Ram's conviction, finding that his persuading Santosh Rani to accompany him and delivering her to Jai Narain constituted kidnapping, regardless of her consent. The object of the kidnapping law is to protect minors from being taken without their guardian's consent for improper purposes. The Court also noted that consent of the minor is immaterial to the offense. The decision reinstated Raja Ram's conviction and sentence that had been overturned by the High Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yt

    Uploaded by

    chirag
    33 views2 pages
    Raja Ram was convicted of kidnapping 14-year-old Santosh Rani from her father's home to deliver her to Jai Narain. The Supreme Court upheld Raja Ram's conviction, finding that his persuading Santosh Rani to accompany him and delivering her to Jai Narain constituted kidnapping, regardless of her consent. The object of the kidnapping law is to protect minors from being taken without their guardian's consent for improper purposes. The Court also noted that consent of the minor is immaterial to the offense. The decision reinstated Raja Ram's conviction and sentence that had been overturned by the High Court.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Raja Ram was convicted of kidnapping 14-year-old Santosh Rani from her father's home to deliver her to Jai Narain. The Supreme Court upheld Raja Ram's conviction, finding that his persuading Santosh Rani to accompany him and delivering her to Jai Narain constituted kidnapping, regardless of her consent. The object of the kidnapping law is to protect minors from being taken without their guardian's consent for improper purposes. The Court also noted that consent of the minor is immaterial to the offense. The decision reinstated Raja Ram's conviction and sentence that had been overturned by the High Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    Yt

    Uploaded by

    chirag
    Raja Ram was convicted of kidnapping 14-year-old Santosh Rani from her father's home to deliver her to Jai Narain. The Supreme Court upheld Raja Ram's conviction, finding that his persuading Santosh Rani to accompany him and delivering her to Jai Narain constituted kidnapping, regardless of her consent. The object of the kidnapping law is to protect minors from being taken without their guardian's consent for improper purposes. The Court also noted that consent of the minor is immaterial to the offense. The decision reinstated Raja Ram's conviction and sentence that had been overturned by the High Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    State of Haryana v.

    Raja Ram
    [1973 SC]
    Facts of the case:
    Santosh Rani, aged about 14 years, daughter of Narain Dass, was the victim of the offence. Jai
    Narain, once visited the house of Narain Dass for treating his ailing sons. Jai Narain started
    paying frequent visits to Narain Dass's house and apparently began to cast an evil eye on the
    prosecutrix. He persuaded her to accompany him by inducing her. He promised to keep her like a
    queen, having nice clothes to wear, good food to eat and also a servant at her disposal. her father
    requested Jai Narain not to visit his house any more. Jai Narain started sending messages to the
    prosecutrix through Raja Ram, persuaded the prosecutrix to go with him to the house of Jai
    Narain.
    On April 4, 1968,
    Raja Ram contacted the prosecutrix for the purpose of accompanying him to Jai Narain's house.
    The prosecutrix, went to Raja Ram's house on the night, After handing over the prosecutrix to Jai
    Narain Raja Ram returned to his own house.
    On April 13,1968,
    S. H. O. Police Station Indri saw Jai Narain and Santosh Rani coming from the side of Dera
    Waswa Ram. Jai Narain was taken into Custody. The prosecutrix had a jhola which contained
    one suit and a shawl and Two chunis which were taken into possession. The salwar of the
    prosecutrix Appeared to have on it stains of semen. After investigation Jai Narain and Raja Ram
    were both sent up for trial, the Former under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. and the latter under
    Sections 366 and 376/109. The respondent was convicted under Section 366 I.P.C. High Court
    acquitted respondent Raja Ram.
    Raja Ram cannot escape conviction for the offence of kidnapping her from her Father’s lawful
    guardianship. It was not at all necessary for Raja Ram to have himself Gone to the house of the
    prosecutrix to bring her from there on the midnight in question. The fact that the prosecutrix was
    easily persuaded to go with Raja Ram would not Prevent him from being guilty of the offence of
    kidnapping her. Her consent or Willingness to accompany Raja Ram would be immaterial and it
    would be equally so Even if the proposal to go with Raja Ram had emanated from her. There is
    no doubt a Distinction between taking and allowing a minor to accompany a person but the
    Present is not a case of the prosecutrix herself leaving her father’s house without any Inducement
    by Raja Ram who merely allowed her to accompany him.
    Supreme Court laid down the following important points:
    The object of this section is to protect the minor children from being seduced for Improper
    purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the Lawful charge or custody
    of their minor wards The gravemen of this offence lies in tha taking or enticing of a minor under
    the Ages specified in the section, out of the keeping of lawful guardian without the Consent of
    such guardian.
    3) Consent of the minor is immaterial
    4) The term “keeping” connotes the idea of charge, protection, control and
    Maintenance.’
    5) persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the Minor to be
    taken out of the keeping of lawful Guardian would be sufficient to attract This section

    Decision of the Supreme Court


    The result is that the appeal is allowed and setting aside the order of the High Court Acquitting
    Raja Ram, respondent, we restore the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge affirming
    both the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Raja Ram, respondent should
    surrender to his bail bond to serve out the Sentence.
    sccs

    You might also like