Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Of Kidnapping, abduction, slavery and forced labour
Section 363: Punishment for kidnapping
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 363
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, deserves to be upheld or whether they are entitled to acquittal.
-
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Ors.
Writ petition filed u/Art.32 challenging the continuing validity of the sentence of death against the petitioner, having been affirmed on appeal, declined in review, and followed by the rejection of mercy petitions and…
-
Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Whether in the attending facts and circumstances, the High Court could have accepted a submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, to conduct narco-analysis test of all the accused persons (including the appellant)…
-
IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus
Issue arose as regards sentencing the accused; about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child; and about adopting measures for adolescent well being and child protection.
-
Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred by not quashing the prosecution against the accused under ss.186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.
-
Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for causing rape and murder of a child aged 3 years and 9 months.
-
Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is justified.
-
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious nature of child trafficking.
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
-
Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Prosecutrix, a minor village girl, was allegedly kidnapped on the pretext of securing her a job, and then gang raped by accused-appellants over a period of two months by holding her captive by threatening her life.…
-
Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
The accused-appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR u/ss.366, 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court.
-
Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka
Whether the conviction of the appellants-accused under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable.
-
Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case where the trial court relied upon the DNA report, whether the non-examination of the scientific experts involved in the process of conducting DNA profiling examination and issuing the report, led to the…
-
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the accused son and…
-
IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus
(i) When a Court deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, what are the essentials, which a judgment must contain; (ii) What was the duty of the High Court while ascertaining the offences u/s.6 of the…
-
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court.…
-
Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was…
-
Shazia Aman Khan and Another v. The State of Orissa and Others
Custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction.
-
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli
Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for his conviction thereon for the murder of his brother-PW-1’s son; whether the testimony of PW-1 could be termed…
-
Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The capital punishment awarded to the petitioner-convict for the conviction u/s. 376 AB, IPC was not confirmed and it was commuted to imprisonment for life, which, going by the provisions thereunder, means imprisonment…
-
Abhishek Saxena v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Whether the chargesheet submitted showed prima facie case u/ss. 323, 384 and 406, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, for extortion and for criminal breach of trust; Whether the High Court has fallen in error in not…
-
Naveen @ Ajay v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether appellant was afforded a fair trial; whether he was deprived of his valuable legal rights.
- Karan @ Fatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Ravi Dhingra v. The State of Haryana
- Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.
- Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors
- Xyz v. Abhisheik & Anr
- Manoj Pratap Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
- Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Jeetu Khatik v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Nahar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Bhagwani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Lochan Shrivas v. The State of Chhattisgarh
- Attorney General for India v. Satish and Another
- Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Nasib Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra
- Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala v. State of Gujarat
- Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra
- Anil Bhardwaj v. The Hon’Ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- Manoj Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- H Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore (Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.446-447 of 2019) in
- Ravi S/O Ashok Ghumare v. The State of Maharashtra
- Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Accused 'X' v. State of Maharashtra
- Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade v. The State of Maharashtra
- Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
- Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.
- Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
- Mahendra Subhashbhai Vankhede v. The State of Gujarat Etc.
- Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra
- Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P.
- Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- Sat Parkash v. State of Haryana and Another
- Vikram Singh@ Vicky &Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Parhlad and Anr. v. State of Haryana
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh
- Md.All @ Guddu v. State of U.P.
- Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat
- Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana