The enticing away the minor out of the

The offence under Section 366 is cognizable, non-bailable, non- compoundable and is exclusively triable by the Court of Session.

Mere abduction does not warrant Section 366. It comes into operation only when the kidnapper or abductor abducts a woman for the purpose of compelling her to marry any person against her will or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Even subsequent intent or act of intercourse with the kidnapped or abducted girl cannot bring the case within the purview of Section 366, if such an intent was absent at the time when the accused enticed the girl. Seduction in this section means not merely inducement to submit to sexual intercourse for the first time, but includes subsequent illicit sexual intercourse as well.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

However, in the case of a woman who habitually carried on the profession of a prostitute, the essential element of seduction is ruled out and hence the offence under Section 366 cannot be committed in connection with such a woman. Where the prosecutrix was herself responsible for taking the accused to other city on the pretext of getting married, there it is not a case of taking away or enticing away the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian. The word ‘marry’ in this section implies going through a form of marriage whether the same is in fact valid or not. Use of force is not an essential ingredient of Section 366 IPC. Abduction or kidnapping can be achieved even by deceitful means. The expression ‘against her will’ means that the act was done not only without consent of the woman, but in spite of her opposition to the doing of it.

There is a conflict of opinion among some High Courts regarding the validity of minor girl’s consent to marriage with the person who kidnaps her.


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out