Pandalai, J
[1] It is contended that P.W. 3 had illicit intercourse with the petitioner even before she was kidnapped from P.W. 4 s house and that therefore the taking was not in order to seduce her to illicit intercourse. For this the decision in Rex v. Federrich Moon, Rex v. Emily Moon [1910] 1 K.B. 818, is relied on. That was a decision under the English Children Act 1908 under which it was held that seduction was surrender or loss of chastity for the first time. In my opinion that decision has no application to Section 366, I.P.C., where the substantial offence is kidnapping or abduction. The conviction was therefore right.
[2] As to the sentence the fact that P.W. 3 was not merely a consenting party but perhaps pressed the petitioner to take her away is to be taken into account. The petitioner is young, and on the whole behaved well, except that he broke the law listening to a young woman. The sentence is reduced to one month s simple imprisonment.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Suppiah v. Emperor
Suppiah v. Emperor
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 20-08-1930
Advocate List
- For The Appearing Parties ----.
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANDALAI
Eq Citations
- 1930 MWN 905
- AIR 1930 MAD 980
- LQ/MadHC/1930/130
Head Note
Kidnapping and Abduction — S. 366, IPC — Consent of victim — English Children Act 1908 — Held, not applicable to S. 366, IPC — Substantial offence under S. 366, IPC is kidnapping or abduction — Conviction upheld — Sentence reduced to one month’s simple imprisonment, considering the fact that the victim was not merely a consenting party but perhaps pressed the petitioner to take her away and that the petitioner is young and behaved well, except for breaking the law by listening to a young woman.
