Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Kidnapping or Abducting in Order to Murder or for Ransom (S. 140 BNS)
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, aggravated forms of kidnapping and abduction include situations where the act is done for purposes such as murder, ransom, forced marriage, sexual exploitation, trafficking, slavery, begging, or wrongful confinement. These offences recognize that kidnapping is often used as a means to facilitate more heinous crimes, thereby compounding the harm caused to the victim.
The distinction between simple kidnapping and its aggravated forms lies primarily in the specific criminal intent, the nature of the victim, and the resulting harm or risk. By identifying and categorizing these aggravated forms, the legal framework ensures proportional punishment and strengthens deterrence against organized and violent crimes.
Section 140 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) address the serious crimes of kidnapping or abducting with the intent to murder or ransom a person. These provisions reflect the law’s commitment to safeguarding life, liberty, and dignity, imposing severe punishments to deter offenders and protect victims. Understanding these sections is essential not only for legal compliance but also for raising awareness about the gravity of kidnapping offenses and the legal consequences they entail.
Kidnapping or Abducting in Order to Murder or for Ransom
Section 140 BNS:
Kidnapping or Abducting in Order to Murder or for Ransom, etc.:
(1) Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustrations:
(a) A kidnaps Z from India, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(2) Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of Section 140(1):
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- The victim is kidnapped or abducted by the accused; and
- The accused had the intention or knowledge that the victim would be murdered or put in danger of murder.
Note that the intention existed at the time of kidnapping or abduction.
Examples:
- A man forcibly takes his business rival to an isolated location with a pre-planned intention to kill him. Even if the murder has not yet occurred, the offence under Section 140(1) BNS is complete once the abduction with intent to murder is proved.
- An accused kidnaps a person and hands him over to hired killers for payment. The act of kidnapping with knowledge and intention that the victim will be murdered attracts Section 140(1) BNS.
- A person deceives his enemy into accompanying him to a deserted place on the pretext of settlement, intending to kill him there. Deceitful inducement amounts to abduction with intent to murder under Section 140(1) BNS.
- Family members forcibly take away a woman who married against their wishes and confine her intending to kill her to restore so-called “family honour.” Kidnapping combined with intent to murder falls squarely under Section 140(1) BNS.
- An accused abducts a man and leaves him in the custody of a violent gang, knowing they are likely to kill him.
- Even if the accused does not personally commit the murder, placing the victim in danger of being murdered attracts Section 140(1) BNS.
Punishment:
Imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Nature of Offence:
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-Compoundable and triable by. Court of Session.
In Shri Moni Neog and others v. the State of Assam, 2006 CRILJ 1944 case, where Sanjay Ghose was the General Secretary of an NGO, working for the welfare of people at Maijuli. As their work started to spread, the members of a banned militant group, United Liberated Front of Assam (ULFA), started to feel unhappy and scared of people losing faith in them, because of their growing dedication for Sanjay Ghose’s NGO. They suspected Sanjay Ghose to be a RAW Agent and developed hostility towards him. One afternoon, he was stopped by two of the accused and taken to a house despite his protest. He was taken to a house where some more militants joined him. He was then taken on a boat to another house, along with more militants, all of whom were armed. At night, some people near that house heard gunshots. When he didn’t return home for a couple of days, his wife filed a police report. Upon investigation, it was found that he is dead. It was accused that these militants had murdered him. The court held that the abductors of Sanjay Ghose had abducted him with the intention to murder him, or at least had the knowledge that he may be murdered or had put him in danger of being murdered. It further said whether he was murdered or not is immaterial. What is important is that the abductors did not at any stage gave an indication that they would spare his life. As a result, the court convicted the accused and awarded them life imprisonment and a fine.
In State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, AIR 2000 SC 2988 case, the Supreme Court said that even if the murder did not take place, the offence would be complete if the abduction was completed with the said objective. Conversely, if there was no such objective when the abduction was perpetrated, but later the abductors murdered the victim, Section 364 IPC would not be attracted, though in such a case the court may have to consider whether the offence of culpable homicide (amounting to or not amounting to murder) was committed.
In Sibu Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand, 2004 CRI LJ (NOC) 35 case, where the case arose from a written report and FIR lodged by Bhukli Devi, the mother of a child named Seema Kumari (aged about 6–7 years). According to prosecution witnesses, Seema Kumari was playing outside when Sibu Ganjhu allegedly kidnapped her on the pretext of giving her a loaf of bread. When she did not return home, villagers searched and later caught Sibu Ganjhu in another village (Ojha Saran). He allegedly confessed before the assembled villagers and the informant that he, along with co-accused Raj Kumar Pandit and Naimuddin Ansari, kidnapped and murdered Seema Kumari due to prior enmity with her father. Trial Court convicted Sibu Ganjhu and the two co-accused under Section 364/34 IPC (kidnapping in furtherance of common intention) — sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and under Section 302/34 IPC (murder in furtherance of common intention) and sentenced to life imprisonment. Raj Kumar Pandit and Naimuddin Ansari later secured acquittal in a separate appeal. Sibu Ganjhu, however, was still in custody and subsequently filed this appeal after his co-accused were acquitted. The High Court reviewed these evidentiary aspects and upheld the conviction for kidnapping under Section 364/34 IPC on the basis of reliable eyewitness testimony indicating the appellant kidnapped the child. However, it set aside the conviction for murder (Section 302/34 IPC), holding that there was no legal evidence to establish the skeleton was that of the victim and the extra-judicial confession regarding murder was not corroborated by independent, trustworthy evidence.
Ingredients of Section 140(2):
The term “ransom” includes any demand for money, property, or valuable security.
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- The victim is kidnapped or abducted by the accused; and
- The accused had threatened to cause death or hurt to such person or by his conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or caused hurt or death to such person; and
- compelled the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom
Examples:
- A gang kidnaps a 12-year-old boy and demands ₹ 50 lakh from his father, threatening to kill the child if payment is not made. This clearly falls under Section 140(2) BNS.
- Militants abduct a government officer and demand the release of imprisoned associates in exchange for his life. This offence attracts Section 140(2) BNS.
- An accused kidnaps a wealthy elderly person and forces him to sign property transfer documents, threatening death if he refuses. This is kidnapping with threat to compel a person to do an act.
Punishment:
Death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine
Nature of Offence:
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-Compoundable and triable by. Court of Session.
In Netra Pal v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi), 2001 CRILJ 1669 case, where the appellant Netra Pal was known to Master Tanu Johia, a 6-year-old boy. One day he had taken the boy along with other boys on a joy ride in a Rickshaw. While he dropped the other boys, he did not drop off Tanu. His mother had thought that Netra Pal would come back with her son in a while. When he didn’t come back, she told his father. He tried to find him around the area where they live, but failed to locate them and filed a police report. The police went to the appellant’s village and found him there along with the child. He was apprehended and a letter asking for Rs. 50,000 in ransom was found in his possession. The court held that mere recovery of the letter assumed to have been written by the appellant demanding Rs. 50000 for the safety and return of the child is not enough to cover “ to pay the ransom” by itself. Demand by a kidnapper is an essential ingredient of the offence because, for the purpose of getting paid ransom, demand must be communicated.
In Malleshi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2004 SC 4865 case, where Vijaybhaskar was studying in college and living at his uncle’s place. He used to go to Chitradurga, where his college was, through a bus, along with another friend. One day when he was waiting to board the bus to go back to his house, he was called by a man who told him he knew his father. He further inquired about the college’s fees saying he wanted to enrol his son here. He then led Vijaybhasker to a jeep informing him that his son is there and made him sit in the jeep. Then two other men joined him and treated him well till they crossed Chitradurga. Once they did, they enquired about his father’s phone number and told him that they want a ransom of Rs. 4,00,000. On the way, they stopped to buy cigarettes. The driver of the jeep told him to run off. He listened to his advice and found out he was in Byrapur village. He informed the villagers who caught hold of the abductors and handed them over to the police. The court held that Vijaybhasker has been abducted through deceitful means. They further referred to the case of Netra Pal v. State and said that the difference of fact that the abducted person, in that case, was a child and in the present case is an adult who can look after himself must be mentioned. It was held that in this case, the demand for ransom had been conveyed to the victim and the offence was completed. The court further said that it cannot be a straight jacket rule that the demand for abduction must always be made to the person who is required to ultimately pay it.
In Vikram Singh v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2013 case, where the appellant had kidnapped a 16-year-old boy and asked for Rs. 50 lacs in ransom. They had then killed this boy. In this case, the appellants filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court to declare Section 364A inserted in the Indian Penal Code as ultra vires (beyond the legal power) of the Constitution to the extent that the same prescribes death sentence for anyone found guilty. He also said that section 364 A was added only to deal with terrorist-related ransom since kidnapping/ abduction has already been dealt with in the previous section. He further prayed for quashing death sentence given to him under this section. The court held that section 364A is very wide. There is nothing which suggests that this section is limited to offences against a foreign state or international governmental organisation, and covers all the “any other person” as well. Court also emphasised upon various Indian and foreign judgements to highlight the importance of proportionality of punishment. It held that the job of giving punishment is the job of the legislature, and the court can only intervene when it feels that the punishment is outrageously disproportionate. In section 364A however, when death is concerned the courts do reserve the right to give death penalty or if not required, a lesser punishment of life imprisonment. Hence, it is not ultra vires with the constitution.
Ingredients of Section 140(3):
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- The victim was kidnapped or abducted by the accused; and
- The intention of accused was to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined
Examples:
- A victim is kidnapped and secretly confined. Accused do so to prevent the victim from attending important meeting. The offence attracts Section 140(3) BNS.
- A person is abducted and wrongfully confined to prevent him from giving evidence in court. The offence attracts Section 140(3) BNS.
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Nature of Offence:
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-Compoundable and triable by the Magistraye of the First Class.
In Jamal v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 Supreme(Raj) 590 case, the Court said that the essential ingredient of Section 365 is abduction. Without it, the offence under Section 365 IPC cannot be established, even if wrongful confinement occurs.
Distinction between Section 140(3) BNS and Section 127(2) BNS:
Section 140(3) BNS deals with kidnapping or abduction with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person. The essential element of this offence is that the accused must first kidnap or abduct the victim and must have the specific intention of secretly confining that person. Thus, removal of the person from one place to another is a necessary component. The offence is aggravated because it involves both deprivation of personal liberty and secrecy of confinement. It is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine, and it is a non-bailable offence.
On the other hand, 127(2) BNS provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means restraining a person in such a manner as to prevent them from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits. Unlike Section 140(3) BNS, there is no requirement of kidnapping or abduction. The offence may occur even if the person was already present at the place of confinement. The punishment is comparatively lighter — imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both — and it is a bailable offence.
The fundamental distinction between the two sections lies in the element of removal and intention. Section 140(3) BNS requires proof of kidnapping or abduction coupled with the intent to secretly confine, whereas Section 127(2) BNS merely requires proof of wrongful confinement without any element of kidnapping or secrecy. Therefore, Section 140(3) BNS is a more serious and aggravated form of offence affecting personal liberty, while Section 127(2) BNS addresses a simpler form of unlawful restraint within fixed boundaries.
Ingredients of Section 140(4):
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- The victim was kidnapped or abducted by the accused; and
- The intention of the accused is that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust; or
- Accused knew it to be likely that such person would be so subjected or so disposed of.
The section applies to anyone who kidnaps or abducts another person with the intention of causing them to be subjected to or put in danger of grievous hurt (severe physical injury), slavery, or unnatural lust. The offence is committed if the person acts with this intent or knows it is likely that the victim will be subjected to such treatment.
Punishment:
Imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Nature of Offence:
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-Compoundable and triable by. Court of Session.
Conclusion:
Section 140 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 reflects the legislature’s continued commitment to protecting personal liberty and human life by criminalizing kidnapping or abduction carried out with the intent to cause death. By targeting not merely the act of unlawful removal but the dangerous intention behind it, the provision addresses one of the gravest threats to individual security. The section underscores that when kidnapping or abduction is coupled with a homicidal objective, the offence becomes significantly aggravated and warrants stringent punishment. Thus, Section 140 BNS serves as a vital safeguard against organized violence, coercion, and premeditated harm, reinforcing the principle that liberty and life are paramount in the criminal justice system.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here