INTERNAL ASSESSMENT 2ND

TOPIC: Kidnapping and Abduction

Submitted to: Ishan sir
Name: Aabid Maqbool
Enrollment no: 2020-342-001
Section: A
Subject: Criminal law
B.ALL.B: 3rd semester

INDEX
1. PART-A

KIDNAPPING

2. PART-B

ABDUCTION

3. PART-C

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF KIDNAPPING

4. PART-D

SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR

5. PART-E

SALE OR PURCHASE OF MINORS FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES

6. PART-F

PROPOSAL FOR REFORM..

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

PART -A
 KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION
Section – 359 Kidnapping - Kidnapping is of two kinds: Kidnapping from
India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Section – 360 – kidnapping from India - Whoever conveys any person

beyond the limits of India without the conveys of that person, or of
some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is
said to kidnap that person form India. The IPC recognises two kinds of
Kidnapping: kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful
guardianship. Kidnapping in any form curtails from the liberty of an
individual. Especially, it impinges the right to life guaranteed under art
21 of the Constitution of India and human rights. It causes terror in the
mind of the people and has deleterious effect on civilised society'.

Kidnapping from India-

The words used in the section are beyond the limits of India’. This
means that the offences under this section are complete, the moment a
person is taken outside the geographical territory of India. It is not
necessary that the person should reach their destination in some other
foreign territory. By the same token, if a person should reach their
destination in some other foreign territory. By the same token, if a
person is apprehended before he crosses the Indian border, then the
offences will not be complete. At best, it may amount to an attempt to
commit the offence of kidnapping form India under s 360, IPC. Till then,
he has a locus paenitentia.

The term 'India' has been defined in s 18, IPC, as the territory of India
excluding the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The taking away of a person outside the territory of India is made a
separate offence, because it has the effect of removing a person from
the jurisdiction of the Indian Law enforcing agencies.

Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship-

Section - 361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship - Whoever takes or

entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under
eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind out of
the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor person of unsound
mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such
minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation – The words 'lawful guardian' in this section include any

person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or
other person.

Exception – This section does not extend to the act of any person who
in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or
who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody
of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful
purpose.

Section 361 deals with taking away of minor children from lawful
guardianship. It is equivalent to what is termed child stealing' in
England. The object of the section is to protect minor children and
person of unsound mind from being seduced, harmed or otherwise
exploited by others. It is to afford protection and security to the wards.
It also naturally recognises the right of the guardians to control and
take charges of their wards who may be minors and/ or people of
unsound mind.
Taking and Enticing

All that is requires to bring an act within the purview of this section, is
to take or entice a minor or a person of unsound mind from the keeping
of the lawful guardian. “Taking’ implies neither force nor
misappropriation. The word means to go, to escort. The consent of the
minor child is of no relevance, because a minor or a person of unsound
mind is not consent. But there must be some active part played by the
accused for taking the minor?. Simply permitting or allowing a minor to
accompany one will not amount to an offence.

In S Varadarajan V. State of Madras", a girl who was on the verge of

attaining majority, voluntarily left her father house, arranged to meet
the accused at a certain place and went to the sub – registrar's office,
where the accused and the girl registered an agreement to marry.
There was no evidence whatsoever that the accused had taken her out
of the lawful guardianship of her parents, as there was no evidence
whatsoever that the accused had taken? her out of the lawful
guardianship of her parents, as there was no active part played by the
accused to persuade her to leave the house. It was held that no offence
under this section was made out.

In State of Harayana V. Raja Ram*, the prosecutrix was a young girl of

14 years. She became friendly with a person called Jai Naraian, aged 32,
who was a frequent visitor. When Jai

Naraian was forbidden by the prosecutrix 's father from coming home,
he sent messages through one Raja Ram. She was constantly persuaded
to leave the house and come with Jai Naraian, who would keep her in a
lot material comfort. One night, the prosecutrix arranged to meet Jai
Naraian in his house and went to meet Jai Narain in his house and went
to meet him

where she was seduced by Jai Narain. Jai Narain was convicted under s
376 for rape of minor and Raja Ram under s 366. The question before
the supreme court was whether Raja Ram could said to have taken the
prosecutrix, since she was willing on the part of the minor to be taken
out of the keeping of the lawful guardian, would be sufficient to attract
the section.

The word “entice' connotes the idea of inducement of pursuance by

offer of pleasure or some other form of allurement. This may work
immediately or t may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible
impression culminating after some time in achieving its ultimate
purpose of successful inducement.

Keeping of Lawful Guardian

Section 361 makes the taking or enticing of any minor person or person
of unsound mind 'out of the keeping of the lawful guardian' an offence.
The meaning of the words ‘keeping of the lawful guardian' came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court in the State of Harayana v.
Raja Ram. The court observed that the word 'keeping', in the context,
cannotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control. The
court compared it with the language used in English Statues, where the
expression used was taken out of the possession and not ‘out of the
keeping’. The difference in the language between English statues and
this section only goes to show that s 361 was designed to protect the
scared right of the guardians with respect of their minor wards.
The term used in the statue is ‘lawful guardian' and not ‘legal guardian’.
The term lawful guardian is a much wider and general term than the
expression ‘legal guardian' would beparents or guardians appointed by
courts. 'Lawful guardian’ would include within its meaning not only
legal guardians but also such person likes a teacher, relatives etc, who
are lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of minor.?

Age of Minor -

As per the section the age of minor child at the relevant point in the
time should be less than 16 in respect of a male, and less than 18 in
respect of a female, in order to constitute an offence under this section.

PUNISHMENT FOR KIDNAPPING -

Section – 363. Punishment for kidnapping - whoever kidnaps any

person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In Chandrakala v. Vipin menon, the supreme court declined to convict

the father, who was accused of kidnapping his minor daughter who was
living with her maternal grand father due to strained relationship
between her parents, on the ground that the accused was the natural
guardian of the child.

PART-B
ABDUCTION
Section – 362 Abduction - whoever by force compels, or by any
deceitful means include, any person to go from any place, is said to
abduct that person.

Section 362 merely defines the term “abduction’. Therefore, abduction

perse is not offence under the IPC. It is an offence when it is
accompanied by certain intent to commit another offence. Force or
fraud is essential to make abduction punishable.

Ingredients

The essential ingredients of this section are:

(a) Forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means;

(b) The objects of such compulsion or inducement must be the going

of a person from any place.

It must be noted that abduction per se as defined under s 362 is not an

offence, 'and hence is not punishable.'' Only if the abduction falls in the
categories provided under ss 364, 365, 366, 367 and 369, will it amount
to an offence. Thus, abduction is an offence only if it is done with intent
to :

(a) Murder (s 364);

(b) Secretly and wrongfully confining a person (s 365);

(c) Induced woman to compel her marriage (s 366);

(d) Subject person to grievous hurt, slavery etc (s 367);

(e) Steal from a person under 10 years ( s 369).

The term 'force' as embodied in s 362, IPC, means the use of actual
force and not merely show of force or threat of force." Where an
accused threatened the prosecutrix with pistol to make her go with
him, it would amount to abduction under this section.'2

Deceitful Means

Under this section, including a person by deceitful means to go from

any place is also an offence. Deceitful means is used as an alternative to
'use' of 'force'. Thus, a person can use force to compel, or in the
alternative deceive a person to leave a place. Either way, it amounts to.
Deceitful means misleading a person by making false representations
and thereby persuading the person to leave any place.

To go from any place

An essential element of abduction is compelling or inducing a person to

go from ay place. It need not be only from the custody lawful guardian
as in the case of kidnapping. For unlike kidnapping, abduction is
continuing offence. The offence of kidnapping is complete, the moment
a person is removed from India or from the keeping of lawful custody of
guardian. But, in the case of abduction, a person is abducted not only
when is first taken away from any place, but also when he is
subsequently remove from one place to another. A kidnapped girl
managed to escape from the kidnappers when she met the accused,
who misrepresented to her that he was a police constable and would
take her to the police station. But instead, he took her to his house,
kept her there, demanded and took a ransom of Rs. 600 from her
mother, before he handed her back. I was held that his act amounted
to abduction. '3 Where a woman is passed from hand to hand in several
places, each of the persons will be guilty of offence of abduction.
Distinction between kidnapping and Abduction -

PART-C
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF KIDNAPPING
KIDNAPPING OF MAIMING FOR BEGGING
Section 363A. Kidnapping or maiming a minor for purposes of
begging. -
(1) Whoever kidnaps any minor or, not being the lawful
guardian of a minor, obtains the custody of the minor, in order
than 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.
(2) 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
for fine
(3) Where any person not being the lawful guardian of a minor,
employs or uses such minor for the purposes of begging, it shall
be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that he kidnapped
or otherwise obtained the custody of that minor in order that
the minor might be employed or used for the purposes of
begging.

(4) In this section, -

(a) Begging means
(i) Soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether under
the pretence of singing, dancing, fortune- telling, performing
tricks or selling articles or otherwise.
(ii) Entering on any private premises for the purposes of
soliciting or receiving aims;
(iii) Exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or
extorting alms, any sore, wound, injury, deforming or disease,
whether of himself or of any other person or of an animal;
(iv) Using a minor as an exhibit for the purpose of soliciting or
receiving alms;
(b) “minor' means
(i) In the case of a male, a person under sixteen years of age;
and
(ii) In the case of a female, a person under eighteen years of
age.
This section was introduced in the year 1959. It was inserted to
convert the growing of 'organised begging’ wherein
unscrupulous persons were abducting children and maiming
them for the purpose of begging. The term “begging’ is defined
in cl (4) of this section.
Clause (3) of this section introduces the presumption that if a
person other than the lawful guardian uses or employs a minor
for begging, then unless the contrary is proved, it will be
presumed that he kidnapped the child.
ABDUCTION TO MURDER
Section 364. Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder: -
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such
person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put
in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
Illustrations
(a) A kidnaps Z from India, intending or knowledge it to be likely
that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence
defined in this section.
(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order
that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined
in this section.
This section will apply if person has been abducted with
intention that he be murdered. The actual murder of the
person is not required. It is sufficient that there was abduction
with the intent to murder.
KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM
364A Kidnapping for ransom, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts
any person or keeps a person in detention after such
kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt
to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or
causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the
government or any foreign state or inter - governmental
organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing
any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Section
364 – A was inserted by criminal law (Amendment) Act 1993
[and further amended by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment)
Act 1995] to provide for severe punishment for abducting or
kidnapping a person and keeping him continuously under
detention and threatening him to cause death or hurt or
creating a reasonable apprehension that he may be put to
death or hurt to compel the government or foreign state or
international inter – governmental organisation or any other
person refrain from doing any act or to pay a ransom as
demanded by kidnapper or abductor.
In Netra Pal v. State (National capital Territory of Delhi)," the
Delhi High Court, in set of peculiar facts, delved into some key
words and ambit of s 364A of the IPC. The raiding party
recovered from the accused the kidnapped child and a letter
demanding ransom. He had neither posted the letter nor
personally contracted the family of the child for three days
after kidnapping till he was arrested. The high court held that
mere intention to demand is translated into action of the
accused by communicating his demand to the person
concerned. Unless the price of retrieval or rescue is made, the
question to pay ransom does not arise as the words to pay
warrant setting the demand for payment in motion. The court,
therefore, declined to convict the accused for kidnapping for
ransom as he, by keeping his letter of demand with him only,
did not convey his demand for ransom to release the child.
KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTION WITH INTENT TO SECRET AND
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
Section 365. kidnapping or abducting with intent to cause that
person to be secretly and wrongfully confine person - Whoever
kidnaps or abducts any person to be secretly and wrongfully
confined, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extent to seven years, and
shall also be liable for fine. Section 365 comes into play when a
person kidnaps or abducts another with intention to secretly
and wrongfully confine him. 18 Such an intention of the
kidnapper or abductor has to be judged from the facts and
circumstances of the case at hand."
KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO COMPEL HER
MARRIAGE, ETC
Section 366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to
compel her marriage, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any
women with intent that she may be compelled, to be likely that
she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or
in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse,
or knowledge it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced
to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of
criminal intimidation as defined in this code or of abuse of
authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any
women to go from any place with an intend that she may be, or
knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to
illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable
as aforesaid.
Mere abduction does not warrant s 366. It comes into
operation only when the kidnapper or abductor abducts her for
the purpose mentioned therein. Even subsequent intent or act
of intercourse with kidnapped or abducted girl cannot bring in
the case within the preview of s 366, if such an intent was
absent at the time when the accused enticed the girl.
Abduction under this section becomes punishable if the victim
had been carried of illegally 'force' or 'deception' from one
place to another place. This section is not directed against
seduction under coercion or under circumstances when she is
entirely in the power of the seducer and when her consent
would be nothing more than a mere submission to the will of
the seducer. Abduction for forcible sexual intercourse or
forcible marriage, or seduction for illicit intercourse are the
main ingredients of this section. The essence of crime is
compulsion.
Seduction in this section means not merely inducement to
submit to sexual intercourse for the first time, but induces
subsequent illicit sexual intercourse as well. However, in the
case of a woman who habitually carries on the profession of a
prostitute, the essential elements of seduction are ruled out
and hence the offence under s 366 cannot be committed in
connection with such a women.25
Minor's Consent to marry her kidnapper – Is t valid?
There is a conflict of opinion between the various high courts in
India on the question whether the consent given by minor girl
to her marriage with the person who kidnaps her is valid or not.
The Calcutta High Court in Fulchand v. Emperor, and the Oudh
Chief Court in Bisnath Prasad v. King Emperor, have taken the
view that the phrase "against her will’in s 366 means only the
minor's own will and not the will of lawful guardian, whereas
the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Emperor, and
Sultan v. Emperor, and Bombay High Court in Emperor v.
Ayubkhan Mir Sultan, have held that the minor's consent at all,
even for the purpose of this section, and that an offence under
this section will lie in such circumstances. The Madras High
Court has agreed with the view of Bombay High Court and of
the Allahabad High Court, though it has not expressly decided
the point.
The principle in the above vase was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in its decision in Thakoral D Vadgama v. State of Gujarat,"
where a rich industrialist has induced a minor girl of 16 to leave
her home and to come to his garage to have illicit intercourse
with him. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the
conviction under s 366, IPC, passed by the trial court and the
Gujarat High Court. The accused came into contract with the
family of the girl's father, held out hopes of appointing him as
the manager of a new factory, which he was going to start at
Mount Abu and Ahmedabad and stayed in big hotels spending
lavishly. He also presented Mohini, the concerned girl, with a
parker pen. Within a few days, thereafter, he purchased by way
of gifts for Mohini, skirts, silver waist band etc. He was actually
found on mohini bed by her mother at Mount Abu and his
connection with Mohini was suspected, and in spite of the
mother's grave protest he was in correspondence with her
without the knowledge of her parents.
Mohini was a schoolgirl of immature understanding having
entered her sixteenth year less than a month before the
incident, and out of emotion, she wrote letters to the accused а
exaggerating incidents, and out of emotion, she wrote letters to
the accused exaggerating incidents of rebuke and beating by
her mother. The accused took advantage of her immature
feelings and induced her to come to his house on an appointed
day. She came, and was taken to his garage and then she was
induced to go to the public road by the accused when the
police party came with her father. The accused falsely denied
her presence in the house but some of her clothes, her school
exercise books, etc, were taken form the garage, where she had
been asked to remain by the accused. The accused was given a
lenient sentence of only rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.
The Supreme Court remarked that Mohini's mother's dignified
protest letter to the accused indicated how the mother of the
girl belonging to a to a comparatively poorer family felt, when
confronted with a rich man's dishonourable behaviour towards
her young impressionable, immature daughter, who was
suggested to render financial help to her husband in time of
need. The Supreme Court distinguished its earlier ruling in
Varadarajan's case and pointed out the meaning of expression
'whoever takes or entices any minor' thus:
The word “takes' does not necessarily connote taking by force
and it is not confined to the use of force, actual or constructive.
These words merely mean to cause to go, to escort or to get
into possession’. No doubt, it does mean physical taking, but,
but not necessarily by use of doubt, it does mean physical
taking, but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word
“entice’ seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement
by giving rise to hope or desire on the other. This can take
many forms, difficult to visualise and describe exhaustively,
some of them may be quiet subtle, depending for their success
on the mental state of the person at the time when the
inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately
or it may work gradual but imperceptible impression
culminating after some time, in achieving its ultimate purpose
or successful inducement. The two words 'takes and ‘entices'
are intended to be read together, so that each takes to some
extent its colour and content from the other. The statutory
language suggest that if the minor leaves her leaves her
parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer
of inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter
cannot be considered to have committed offence as defined in
section s 361, IPC. But if the guilty party has laid a foundation
by inducement, allurement or threat, etc, and if this gain can be
considered to have influenced, the minor or weighed with her
in leaving her guardian's custody or keeping and going to the
guilty party, then prima facie it would be difficult for him to
plead innocence on the ground that the minor had voluntarily
come to him.
PROCURATION OF MINOR GIRL
Section 366A. Procreation of minor girl.—Whoever, by any
means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of
eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent
that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will
be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person
shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 366B. Importation of girl from foreign country.—
Whoever imports into [India] from any country outside India for
from the State of Jammu and Kashmir) any girl under the age of
twenty-one years with intent that she may be, or knowing it to
be likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse
with another person, shall be punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 366A and 366B were inserted in the Indian Penal Code
1860 in the year 1923 in pursuance of the International
Convention for Suppression of the Traffic in Women and
Children. They intended to punish the export and import of girls
for prostitution. Section 366A, which punishes a person who
makes a girl under 18 years of age to move from any place to
another with intend to force or seduced her illicit intercourse
with other person, deals with procuration of minor girls from
one part of India (except Jammu & Kashmir) to another. Section
366B deals with import in India of a girl less than twenty-one
years for prostitution from any foreign country or Jammu &
Kashmir.
The term “illicit intercourse’ used in these provisions means
sexual intercourse between man and woman who are not
husband or wife. And the word 'seduced' (to illicit intercourse)
means inducing or enticing or tempting a girl of the specified
age to submit to illicit intercourse not for the first time but also
at any time or on any occasion.
For convicting a person under 366A it is essential to establish
that he has induced a girl below the age of 18 years to go from
one place with the intend ( or knowledge) that she would be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with someone other
than himself. In the absence of any proof disclosing coercion or
inducement by the accused, the deserved acquittal of charges
under s 366A.
Section 366-B makes it an offence to import a girl under the
specified age from any foreign country or the state of Jammu &
Kashmir with intent or knowledge that she would be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse with another person."
KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING TO SUBJECT PERSON TO
GRIEVOUS HURT
Section 367. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order
that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as
to be put in danger of being subject to grievous hurt, or slavery,
or to unnatural lust of any person, or knowing it to be likely
that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
In Dharshan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court
convicted the accused under s 367 for abduction the victim and
mercilessly beating him.
WRONGFULLY CONCEALING OR KEEPING IN CONFINEMENT
KIDNAPPED OR ABDUCTED PERSON. -
Section 368.Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement,
kidnapped or abducted person- Whoever, knowing that any
person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully
conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same
manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with
the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as
that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in
confinement.
Section 368 does not apply to the perpetrator of the offence of
kidnapping or abduction but to his accomplice who knowingly
conceals the kidnapping or abducted person.
To constitute an offence under s 368 of the IPC, it is necessary
that the prosecution must establish the following ingredients:
(1) The person in question has been kidnapped or abducted;
(2) The accused knew that the said person has been kidnapped
or abducted; and
(3) The accused having such knowledge wrongfully conceals or
confines the person concerned.
So far as the second ingredient is concerned, it is an
interference to be drawn by the courts from various
circumstances. Whether there has been wrongful concealment
or confinement under s 368, is a matter to be considered from
the facts and circumstances of a particular a case.
In Smt Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh.“!, the accused
had been charged of the offence of stealing a new born child
from its mother's delivery bed in the maternity hospital, as the
child was found in the bedroom of the accused, although she
had not given birth to any new born child. The Supreme Court
upheld her conviction under s 368, holding that under the
circumstances, the interference of concealment and guilt
concurrently drawn by the courts below were justifiable and
correct.
KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING CHILD UNDER TEN YEARS WITH
INTENT TO STEAL FORMITS PERSON
Section 369. Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years with
intent to steal from its person. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts
any child under the age of ten years with the intention of taking
dishonestly any movable property from the person of such
child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Section 369, as evidence from its phraseology, provides
punishment for kidnapping or abducting a child with the
intention of taking movable property from the person of a such
child.

PART-D
SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR
Section 370. buying or disposing of any person as a slave. -
Whoever imports, export, removes, buys, sells or disposes of
any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains against his
will any person as slave, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.
There must be a selling or disposal of a person ‘as a slave', i.e.,
a selling or disposal whereby one, who claims to have a
property to another.

Section 371. Habitual dealing in slaves. - Whoever habitually

imports, exports, removes, buys, sells, traffics or deals in slaves,
shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or with
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding
the years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 371 provides punishment for the habitual slave traders

Section 374 Unlawful compulsory labour - Whoever unlawfully
compels any person to labour against the will of that person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or with both.
Section 374 intended to check the practice of forced labour.
Therefore, it makes unlawful compulsory labour an offence. It
embodies the principle that no person shall be unlawfully
forced to undertake labour against his will. The word “labour'
applies both to physical and mental labour.
 PART-E
SALE OR PURCHASE OF MINORS FOR IMMORAL
PURPOSES
Section 372. Selling minor for purposes of prostitution, etc. -
Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of any [person
under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person
shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of
prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any
unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that
such person will at any age be] employed or used for any such
purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
be liable to fine.
Explanation I. - When a female under the age of eighteen years
sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to
any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so
disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be
presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall
be used for the purpose of prostitution.
Explanation II. - For the purposes of this section "illicit
intercourse" means sexual intercourse between persons not
united by marriage or by any union or tie which, though not
amounting to a marriage, is recognised by the personal law or
custom of the community to which they belong or, where they
belong to different communities, of both such communities, as
constituting between them a quasi-marital relation
Section 373. Buying minor for purposes of prostitution, etc. -
Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any
[person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such
person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of
prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any
unlawful and immoral purpose, of knowing it to be likely that
such person will at any age be] employed or used for any
purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation I - Any prostitute or any person keeping or
managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtains
possession of a female under the age of eighteen years shall,
until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained
possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used
for the purpose of prostitution.
Explanation II - "Illicit intercourse” has the same meaning as in
section 372.
Section 372 provides punishment for selling a person under the
age of 18 years either sex for the purpose of prostitution, illicit
intercourse or for any other immoral purpose, while s 373
provides punishment for a person who buys such a minor
person.
For invoking the provisions of s 372, the prosecution is required
to prove that has sold or let to hire a person under the age of
18 years with intent or knowledge that the person would be
used for either the purposes mentioned therein.43 Such a
person may be of either sex. Married or unmarried or leading
an immoral life prior to sale or purpose. 44 The offence is
complete the moment there is sale or letting to hire a minor
with the intention specified in s 372.
Section 373, as stated earlier, makes criminally responsible for
buying, hiring, or obtaining possession of a minor for the
purposes specified therein.

PART-F
 PROPOSALS FOR REFORMS
The Fifth Law Commission in its forty second report on the
Indian Penal Code has suggested some major reforms in the law
relating to kidnapping and abduction. The Law Commission, the
Government's law reform adviser, has suggested removing a
requirement that force or fraud must be used for an abduction
to be kidnap. It would mean a warring parent who fails to
return a child in a domestic dispute could face the prospect of
being charged with kidnap,which carries a maximum life
sentence. In contrast, child abduction carries a maximum term
of seven years.
The Commission insisted the planned reform was not designed
to target those cases but to ensure criminals who entice
children or vulnerable adults in to their cars or houses can be
charged with kidnap. The Law Commission has proposed
revamping the law of kidnap as part of a drive to make
legislation clearer.
Lord Justice Munby, chairman of the Commission, said: "The
common understanding of kidnap doesn't square with the law
as it is at present." The specific requirement of the use of force
or fraud to constitute a kidnapping should be removed to help
protect children and vulnerable people, the advisers said.
Explaining the "serious problems" with the law as it stands,
Professor David Ormerod, the law commissioner leading the
consultation, said: "In practical terms, a young child or
vulnerable adult who accompanies an offender without having
been forced or defrauded into doing so won't necessarily have
been kidnapped." He added there was also an ambiguity over
whether there could be "a prosecution for kidnap if an offender
uses fraud to get someone to accompany him but he doesn't
actually detain them until the end of the journey, which runs
counter to what most people would think of as kidnapping". In
its consultation paper, the commission said: "The commission's
proposals would close this loophole.
"A lack of consent by the victim should be enough even if no
force of fraud was used by the abductor." Under the current
law, there is no equivalent offence of child abduction when the
victim is a vulnerable adult, so unless force or fraud was used,
prosecutors have to spend time "scrabbling around" for other
offences, such as those against the person. Charges of false
imprisonment could also be brought, but only if a loss of liberty
could be proven.
Prof Ormerod added: "Our aim is to clarify the definition and
boundaries of kidnapping and to ensure that these forms of
wrongdoing can be prosecuted with confidence." The
commission is also considering whether some minor cases of
kidnapping should be able to be heard by magistrates, rather
than only in the crown court. One in five kidnap cases heard by
crown court judges leads to a sentence which could have been
imposed quicker and cheaper by magistrates, figures showed.
The three options suggested by the commission, which include
clearer definitions leading to fewer legal arguments and
appeals, would each save at least £2.5 million, impact
assessments showed.
But there would be no significant change in the total number of
cases prosecuted. Each year, up to 750 cases in which a person
is charged with kidnapping go before magistrates, but only up
to 150 cases result in a conviction at crown court. The three-
month consultation ends on December 27.

BIBLIOGRAPHY-
BOOKS REFERRED -
(1) By single Author - P.S. Pillai
(2) THE Indian Penal Code K.D. Gaur(Universal law publishing
Co., Fourth Edition)

WEBSITES
(3) Law commission report available at -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and
order/8791942/Reform-of-kidnap-
law-could-hit-warring-parents.html