EMPEROR Vs. LAKSHMAN BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case is charged under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, with the offence of kidnapping a girl under sixteen years of age from the lawful guardianship of her father in order that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse. In the alternative, he is charged with the simple offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is common ground-and it is admitted by the girl-that she used to have illicit intercourse with the accused before the alleged offence took place, and it is contended on behalf of the defence that the term seduce in Section 366, Indian Indian Penal Code, applies only to the first act of seduction, that is, inducing a woman to surrender her chastity for the first time, and that, therefore, where, as in the present case, a minor girl had illicit intercourse with the accused before the alleged kidnapping took place, there is no offence under that section, although the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 might be established.

(3.) The decision of this question rests on the meaning of the word seduce as used in this section. According to its dictionary meaning, it is used in two senses, one, a general and the other, a specific sense, that is, generally, to entice, faliure or corrupt, and specifically, to induce a woman to surrender her virtue or chastity implying thereby only the first act of illicit intercourse. In which of these two senses is that, term used in Section 366, Indian Penal Code ? On this point, there is a conflict of opinion among the Indian Courts. The Allahabad and the Lahore High Courts have held that it is used in the latter sense : Emperor V/s. Baijnath (1932) 33 Cr. L. J. 669, s.c. [1932] A. L. J. 483, Nura V/s. Emperor (1933) 35 Cr. L. J. 1386 ; while the Calcutta, Patna and Madras High Courts and the Chief Court of Lower Burma have held that it is used in the former sense : Prajullakumar Basu v. The Emperor (1929) I.L.R. 57 Cal. 1074, Krishna Maharana V/s. King-Emperor (1929) I.L.R. 9 Pat. 647, Suppiah V/s. Emperor [1930] A. I. R. Mad. 980 King- Emperor V/s. Nga Ni Ta (1904) 10 Burma L.R. 196. There does not appear to be any reported ruling of our High Court. For the restricted sense, reliance is also placed on the English case of Rex V/s. Frederick Moon ;Rex V/s. Emily Moon [1910] 1 K. B. 818, where the words used are "seduction or prostitution" in Section 17 of the Children's Act of 1908, and it is hald that seduction there meant surrender or loss of chastity for the first time.