Minor Found At His Odisha Home: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Kidnapping Conviction, Cuts 5-Year Term To Time Served

On 13 February 2025, the minor prosecutrix went to a hospital with her cousin and disappeared while he was away.

Her father reported her missing on 17 February.

On 27 February, police recovered her from the appellant’s house in Odisha.

The trial court acquitted the appellant of the sexual-offence charges but convicted him under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), sentencing him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

On appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction and sought reduction of sentence, relying on his age, lack of prior convictions, acquittal on the more serious charges, and time already served.

Section 137(2) of the BNS applies where a minor is taken from the keeping of a lawful guardian without that guardian’s consent; the minor’s own consent does not substitute for the guardian’s consent.

The offence is punishable by imprisonment of either description for up to seven years and also with fine.

In *Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh*, (1977) 3 SCC 287, the Supreme Court emphasised reformation and rehabilitation in sentencing, with punishment proportionate to the offence and the offender’s circumstances.

Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was invoked in directing the appellant to furnish a bond following release.

The High Court found the prosecutrix’s evidence that the appellant took her from the bus stand and kept her at his home to be supported by her cousin’s and parents’ evidence and by the recovery from the appellant’s house.

The sequence of her disappearance, the missing-person report, and her recovery established that she was taken and kept away from her guardians.

Her parents’ search and report showed they had not consented, and any consent by the minor was immaterial; the conviction therefore disclosed no illegality or perversity.

On sentence, the Court considered the appellant’s period in custody, age, and circumstances, and applied the principle that sentencing should be proportionate and take account of the offender while furthering reformation.

The conviction under Section 137(2) of the BNS was affirmed, but the five-year substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, stated by the Court as one year, eight months and two days.

The fine was reduced from ₹5,000 to ₹500, with 15 days’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

The Court directed the appellant’s release if he was not required in another case or in default of fine, and required him to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 for six months.