A Section 363 IPC conviction cannot stand without evidence proving the essential ingredients of kidnapping.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant took the complainant’s daughter from Bengaluru to Dharmavaram and then Tirupati, where they married and stayed with his relatives.

Although the trial court framed a charge under Section 366 of the IPC, it convicted the appellant under Section 363 and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

The appellant appealed, contending that the evidence did not establish the offence.

1. Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with his conviction under Section 363 of the IPC

2. Whether the prosecution evidence proved that the appellant kidnapped the victim from the lawful guardianship of her guardian

The Court considered Section 363 of the IPC, which prescribes punishment for kidnapping, and assessed whether the evidence established the elements of kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

It stated that the prosecution had to show that the accused enticed the victim and kept her away from her lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent, and that the victim was below the relevant age.

The judgment cites no precedents.

The victim (PW1) did not testify that the appellant enticed or took her away from her lawful guardian without consent, or otherwise describe the alleged kidnapping.

Her mother (PW2) testified to reporting her daughter missing but did not implicate the appellant and admitted that she did not know her daughter’s whereabouts when she filed the complaint.

The Court also found no material proving the victim’s age at the time of the alleged offence; the birth certificate did not disclose her name.

The remaining witnesses did not provide evidence supporting the prosecution’s case.

The Court therefore found the evidence insufficient to establish the offence under Section 363.

It directed the trial court to refund any fine deposited and ordered that the appellant’s bail bond stand cancelled.