Varadarajan v. State of Madras

Case Title: Varadarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 942)

Section 361 IPC punishes kidnapping from lawful guardianship. The Supreme Court drew a clear line between active taking/inducing and mere cooperation. Because the minor, Savitri, initiated contact, went willingly, and chose to marry, and there was no proof of inducement by the accused, the Court held that “taking” was not proved and acquitted him.

• Did the accused take or entice Savitri out of her guardian’s keeping so as to commit kidnapping under Section 361 IPC?

Ingredients of Section 361 IPC:

1. Taking or enticing of a minor;
2. Out of the keeping of a lawful guardian;
3. Without the guardian’s consent.

Active participation needed: Prosecution must show the accused’s inducement or active role leading the minor to leave guardianship; mere presence or cooperation is not “taking”.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. There was no evidence that he enticed or actively took Savitri from her guardian. She purposefully contacted him, approached the meeting point, got into the car, and agreed to marry—all on her own volition. Mere cooperation is not “taking”.

“Taking” under Section 361 requires inducement or active participation. Passive presence or cooperation with a minor’s conscious decision does not satisfy the requirement of taking/enticing from lawful guardianship.

• Exam clarity: Distinguishes inducement from cooperation.
• Consent vs control: Focus on who initiates and who leads.
• Context counts: Age, education, and independence can inform whether “taking” occurred.

1. Prosecution must prove active taking/enticing by the accused.
2. Mere facilitation of the minor’s own plan is not kidnapping under Section 361.
3. Minor’s maturity and awareness can weaken inference of inducement.
4. Acquittal followed as the proximate cause of leaving was the minor’s own decision.

Mnemonic: “AID not AIDED” — Active Inducement is Demanded; if the minor AIDED herself and you only cooperated, no “taking”.

• Step 1: Who started it? (Minor or accused?)
• Step 2: What did the accused do to make her leave?
• Step 3: Is the accused’s conduct the proximate cause of leaving?

Taking

Active removal or leading away of the minor from the guardian’s keeping.

Enticing

Alluring or persuading a minor to leave guardianship.

Proximate cause

A direct and effective cause, not a remote or passive factor.