This section applies to all kidnapping of children, regardless of motive.

This section specifically requires proof that the kidnapping was done with the intention of dishonestly stealing movable property from the child. If the motive was something else (like ransom, trafficking, or personal grudge) without any intent to steal property, this particular section would not apply—other provisions dealing with kidnapping might apply instead.

The child must actually lose the property for this crime to be complete.

The law focuses on the 'intention' to dishonestly take property at the time of kidnapping. Courts have generally held that the offense can be considered complete based on this intent combined with the act of kidnapping, even if the actual theft is interrupted or fails (simplified).

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 97

Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years of age with intent to steal from its person

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any child under the age of ten years with the intention of taking dishonestly any movable property from the person of such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.§

Why this exists

This provision addresses a specific and cruel form of crime where children—especially in earlier eras when they were adorned with gold ornaments or jewelry—were kidnapped not for ransom or other motives but purely to strip them of valuables. It recognizes that young children cannot resist or report such crimes effectively, making them easy targets. The law traces back to Section 369 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has been retained in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the same core purpose: protecting the youngest and most vulnerable from being used as means to theft.

How courts read it

Under the earlier identical provision (IPC Section 369), courts have clarified that the prosecution must prove both elements together: the kidnapping or abduction of a child under 10, AND the specific dishonest intention to take property from that child's person. Courts have held that if the intention was something else (like ransom or trafficking) and theft was incidental or absent, this specific section would not apply, though other kidnapping provisions might. The requirement of proving 'dishonest intention' at the time of kidnapping has been emphasized as central to conviction under this section.

Common misconceptions

Myth: This section applies to all kidnapping of children, regardless of motive.
Fact: This section specifically requires proof that the kidnapping was done with the intention of dishonestly stealing movable property from the child. If the motive was something else (like ransom, trafficking, or personal grudge) without any intent to steal property, this particular section would not apply—other provisions dealing with kidnapping might apply instead.
Myth: The child must actually lose the property for this crime to be complete.
Fact: The law focuses on the 'intention' to dishonestly take property at the time of kidnapping. Courts have generally held that the offense can be considered complete based on this intent combined with the act of kidnapping, even if the actual theft is interrupted or fails (simplified).