Section 137 defines kidnapping in two forms — kidnapping from India, and kidnapping a child or person of unsound mind from lawful guardianship — and punishes either form with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 137's sub-section (1) to a merger of old IPC Sections 359 (the general "kidnapping" definition), 360 (kidnapping from India), and 361 (kidnapping from lawful guardianship), and sub-section (2) to old IPC Section 363 (punishment for kidnapping). Cross-checked directly against the bare text of all four IPC sections.
| BNS item | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 137(1) | 359, 360 & 361 | Merged, with a substantive change |
| 137(2) | 363 | Exact |
Sub-section (1) folds the old three-section structure (a general definition, plus two separate operative sections) into a single sub-section with lettered clauses (a) and (b). Comparing clause (b) to old IPC Section 361 word for word: old IPC Section 361 defined the protected person as "any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind." Clause (b) of this section instead refers to "any child" — and this project's own local copy of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita defines "child" (Section 2(3)) as any person below the age of eighteen years, without any distinction by sex. The age threshold for boys has therefore been raised from under sixteen to under eighteen, and the differential age treatment by sex has been removed in favour of a single, uniform under-eighteen threshold. Sub-section (2) is reproduced without any change from old IPC Section 363.
(1) Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship——
(a) whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India;
(b) whoever takes or entices any child or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such child or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such child or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation.—The words "lawful guardian" in this clause include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such child or other person.
Exception.—This clause does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
(2) 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.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Sub-section (1) defines kidnapping in two distinct forms. Clause (a), kidnapping from India, requires conveying a person beyond India's limits without valid consent — it applies to any person, regardless of age. Clause (b), kidnapping from lawful guardianship, applies only to a child (any person under eighteen) or a person of unsound mind, and requires taking or enticing them out of their lawful guardian's keeping without that guardian's consent. The Explanation broadens "lawful guardian" to include anyone lawfully entrusted with the child's care, even without formal legal guardianship. The Exception protects a person acting in good faith as the believed father, or believed lawful custodian, of an illegitimate child, unless the act was for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
Sub-section (2) prescribes the general punishment for either form of kidnapping defined in sub-section (1): imprisonment of either description up to seven years, and the offender is also liable to fine. More specific and more severely punished forms of kidnapping for particular purposes are dealt with in the sections that follow.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 137 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
A young woman left her father's house of her own accord and married the accused; the prosecution alleged he had kidnapped her from her father's lawful guardianship. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that “taking” a minor out of lawful guardianship under this section requires the accused to have induced or actively participated in forming the minor's decision to leave — where the minor, capable of understanding what she was doing, leaves voluntarily and only afterward joins or is helped by the accused, there is no “taking” within the section's meaning. Mere accompanying, or assisting after the fact, is not enough.
Currency check: decided 1964; still the core, unqualified test for this limb of kidnapping, applied without reformulation in the decades since. No overruling found in this review.
No. What matters under clause (b) is the consent of the lawful guardian, not the child's own consent, since a child is not treated in law as capable of validly consenting to being taken out of guardianship.
No. Clause (a), kidnapping from India, applies to any person conveyed beyond India's limits without valid consent — it is not limited to children or persons of unsound mind, unlike clause (b).
Sub-section (2) sets the general punishment (up to seven years and fine) for either kind of kidnapping defined here. Later sections in this Chapter prescribe more severe punishment where kidnapping or abduction is committed for specific aggravating purposes.