BACK TO SECTIONS(2011) 5 SCC 1
BNS 2024ACTIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 140
Kidnapping or Maiming a Minor for Purposes of Begging
Replaces colonial-era: IPC 363A
Non-BailableCognizable: CognizableCourt of Session
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 363A to BNS 140.
2
Life imprisonment for maiming a child for begging preserved — one of the few non-homicide offences carrying this maximum.
3
Presumption against person found with begging minor maintained.
4
Read with POCSO and Juvenile Justice Act for comprehensive child protection.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Whoever kidnaps any minor or, not being the lawful guardian of a minor, obtains the custody of the minor in order that such minor may be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Whoever maims any minor in order that such minor may be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Legal Commentary
Section 140 addresses one of the most viscerally disturbing forms of child exploitation in India: the deliberate kidnapping and maiming of children to deploy them as professional beggars. The section creates two distinct offences with dramatically different punishments that reflect the profound escalation of harm. The first offence — kidnapping a child for begging — carries up to 10 years. The second — maiming a child for begging — carries life imprisonment. The maiming provision recognises that deliberately disfiguring or disabling a child to maximise their effectiveness as a beggar (severing limbs, blinding, burning to create permanent scars) is an act of such extraordinary cruelty that it warrants the harshest sentence. This is not hypothetical — organised begging syndicates in India have been documented deliberately maiming children to generate more sympathy and larger donations from the public. The provision addresses both the immediate perpetrator who physically kidnaps or maims, and anyone who obtains custody of a minor not being their lawful guardian for begging purposes — covering the syndicate operator who receives children from kidnappers. An important presumption operates: where a person is found in possession of a minor who is begging, the court presumes (in the absence of satisfactory explanation) that the person has obtained custody for begging purposes.
Landmark Precedents
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011)
RELEVANCE
Supreme Court directive ordering states to take action against organised begging syndicates exploiting children, directly engaging the IPC 363A framework (now BNS 140).
Case Simulations
"A begging ring operator in Mumbai who pays traffickers to deliver children and deploys them across tourist areas — Section 140 (obtaining custody for begging), up to 10 years."
"A syndicate leader who has a child's arm surgically removed or burned to generate sympathy from the public — Section 140 (maiming for begging), life imprisonment."
"A person found sitting with three unrelated children who are visibly begging — presumed under Section 140 to have obtained custody for begging; must provide satisfactory explanation."
Expert Insights
If the adult obtains custody of the child (who is not their own) for begging purposes, yes — Section 140 covers obtaining custody of a minor for begging, regardless of whether physical force was used. The prohibition extends beyond kidnapping to any acquisition of custody for this purpose.
Any deliberate physical harm intended to disable the child for more effective begging — severing a limb, blinding an eye, inducing permanent disability through drugs, or causing permanent disfigurement. Courts have included deliberate starvation causing stunted growth as a form of maiming for these purposes.
A parent who forces their child to beg may be liable under cruelty and child labour laws. Section 140 specifically targets those who 'kidnap' or obtain custody of minors not their own — a parent forcing their own child to beg falls more directly under child labour and cruelty provisions, though maiming one's own child for begging would still attract Section 140.