AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 170 wordsPandalai, J.—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.
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.