Analysis Of Section 354 And 355 Of The Indian Penal Code

Meaning and Scope of Modesty:

The meaning of the word "modesty" means, "Womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous
chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in men or women) reserve or sense of shame
proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions". – Oxford English
Dictionary1
Court observed: "This obviously does not refer to a particular woman but to the accepted
notions of womanly behaviour and conduct. It is in this sense that the modesty appears to
have been used in section 354 of the Indian Penal Code".
The learned Judge then referred to S.509 of the Penal Code in which also the word "modesty"
appears and then proceeded to say:
Public Morality and Decent Behavior:
"The object of this provision seems to have been to protect women against indecent
behaviour of others which is offensive to morality. The offences created by section 354 and
section 509 of the IPC are as much in the interest of the women concerned as in the interest
of public morality and decent behaviour.” Court further observed that “These offences are not
only offences against the individual but against public morals and society as well, and that
object can be achieved only if the word "modesty" is considered to be an attribute of a human
female irrespective of fact whether the female concerned has developed, enough
understanding as to appreciate the nature of the act or to realize that it is offensive to decent
female behaviour or sense of propriety. concerning the relations of a female with others".
Global Scenario:
The fact that, the Sexual Offences Act, 1956[8] has used much wider-language in S. 14
which, deals with indecent assault on women than that used in S. 354, I.P.C. That in one
sense S. 354 can also be said to be wider than S.14 of the British Act in that it is not confined
to sexual offences which is quite correct. The two provisions run thus: Section 14 of the
Sexual Offences Act, 1956:
"Indecent assault on a woman: (1) It is an offence, subject to the exception mentioned in sub-
section (3) of this section for a person to make an indecent assault on a woman.
(2) A girl under the age of sixteen cannot in law give any consent which would prevent an act
being an assault for the purposes of this section.
(3) Where a marriage is invalid under section two of the Marriage Act, 1949, or section one
of the Age of Marriage Act, 1929 (the wife being a girl under the age of sixteen), the
invalidity does not make the husband guilty of any offence under this section by reason of her
incapacity to consent while under that age, if he believes her to be his wife and has
reasonable cause for the belief".
(4) A woman who is a defective cannot in law give any consent which would prevent an act
being an assault for the purposes of this section, but a person is only to be treated as guilty of

1
Indian Penal Code 1860, s.354. (hereinafter IPC 1860)
an indecent assault on a defective by reason of that incapacity to consent, if that person knew
or had reason to suspect her to be a defective".
Section 354 of the Indian Panel Code:
"Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty-Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both". [9]
What is made an offence under S.14 is the act of the culprit irrespective of its reaction on the
woman. The question is whether under S.354 the position is different. It speaks of outraging
the modesty of a woman and at first blush seems to require that the outrage must be felt by
the victim herself. But such an interpretation would leave out of the purview of
Section 354 deals with use of assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her
modesty. It says “Whosoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to
outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description of term which may extend to two years or with fine,
or with both.”2
· Classification of Offence.-The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable,
compoundable with permission of the Court, pending and triable by any Magistrate.3
Section 355 deals with use of assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person,
without grave provocation. It says “whosoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person,
intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation
given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”4
· Classification of Offence.-The offence under this section is non-cognizable, bailable,
compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.5
Grey Areas Under These Sections:-
· The Section 354 mentions ‘to outrage modesty of woman’ but the section does not define
what modesty is? ‘Outrage the modesty of woman’ is a vague term. What can be termed as
modesty for one woman, need not necessarily be the same for some other woman.
Further, the meaning of molestation makes an assault on a woman, culpable only if it is done
with the intention of outraging her modesty. In absence of an extensive definition of
‘modesty’ and ‘intention of outraging’, courts have displayed a patriarchal mindset in dealing
with the victim. Also, the offence of rape defined in section 376 of IPC is constituted only
when ‘penetration’ is present. Hence, the grey area lies between section 354 and section 376?
Courts often rely upon technicality of the absence of ‘penetration’ and impose a relatively
minor punishment of imprisonment up to two years for molestation. The court tried to define
the term ‘outraging the modesty of woman’ in the case of Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana6,
2
Id.
3
Indian Penal Code 1860, s.355. (hereinafter IPC 1860)
4
Id.
5
A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1497.
6
(1995) 6 S.C.C 194: 1995 S.C.C. (Cri) 1059,See discussion infra pg.8
saying the act of pulling a woman, removing her dress coupled with a request for sexual
intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman, and knowledge that
modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence. Also in the case
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill7 the court said that since the word ‘modesty’ has not been
defined in the Indian Penal Code, dictionary meaning was looked upon. According to Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary (3 Edn.) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to
woman means “womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and
conduct”8. In relation to woman, the term ‘modest’ in the same dictionary is defined as
“decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shamefast”.
· This section provides an edge to a woman who wants to settle her personal scores or is
egocentric. A woman can abuse this section under the pretext of outraging her modesty even
on simple grounds of unintentional touching, pulling in a crowded place etc. In the case, M A
Nayeem Farooqui vs. State of Andra Pradesh 9, the alleged Mr. Farooqui was arrested for
offence under Section 354 on a false complaint lodged by Ms.Jabeena that he abused her,
caught hold of her hand and threatened to pull her sari. Mr.Farooqui was arrested and
imprisoned for more than one month. Mr.Farooqui underwent torture and was also termed as
mentally ill, and forcibly sent to mental hospital. It was later proved that Mr.Farooqui was
innocent and let free.
Also in the case Ram Das vs. State of West Bengal10 a railway officer who was forcibly trying
to secure a berth, occupied by a lady and her baby was accused for committing offence under
Section 354 and was sentenced with two years of imprisonment. The matter was brought to
Supreme Court and it said that the most serious allegation against the appellant was that he
forcibly held the two ladies to his chest thereby trying to outrage the modesty of two women
in the presence of two gentlemen which is so unnatural, that there must be clear and
unimpeachable evidence before it can be accepted.
The Supreme Court held that appellant being a railway employee; it was his duty to behave
courteously to passengers. His conduct in forcibly trying to occupy the seat occupied by a
lady and her baby and assaulting her when she resisted, called for censure. Appellant was
held guilty of assault11but not with an intent to outrage modesty. A sentence of three months
rigorous imprisonment was awarded by SC, the maximum sentence permissible under
Section 352 and acquitted the charge under Section 354. Also the maximum punishment for
offences under Section 354 and 355 can be two years or fine or both 12. The specification of
term of punishment is unfair as the offences committed can be grievous and liable for a
punishment for a term of more than two years.
It was seen in the case Girdhar Gopal vs. State13, the applicant who is a Pujari took a nine
year old girl to his home under the pretext of giving “Prashad”, made her lie on the bed, put a
covering on her and then sat upon her. He then became naked and asked the girl to remove

7
Collins Cobulid Advanced Learners English Dictionary 922(4 ed.,2003)
8
1998(1) A.L.D. 103
9
A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 711: 1954 Cr L.J. 1793
10
IPC 1860,s.352
11
A.I.R. 1953 Madh. B. 147, overruled in State of Punjab vs. Major Singh, Lachman Singh, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 63,
See explanation infra pg.10
12
Andra Pradesh Act 6 of 1991, section 2.
13
Ibid.
her clothes. Later the girl’s brother and neighbours rescued the girl. The accused was found
to have committed offence under Section 354 and was sentenced to one year imprisonment.
In this case, offence is committed on a minor girl and that too by a Pujari who are highly
respected and considered to be pious people. With the relevance to facts the accused should
have been punished with more rigorous imprisonment and with significant amount of fine.
Till date many amendments have been made but no specific amendments have been made
under this section. The state of Andra Pradesh however took an initiative in 1991 by
following substitution for Section 354, “Assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to
outrage her modesty.-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to a woman, intending to
outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but
which may extend to seven years and is liable for fine: Provided that the Court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years, but which
shall not be less than two years.”14
Landmark Judgments:
The term ‘woman’ is very unclear and controversial. Does it include woman of all ages, right
from a newly born baby to an elderly octogenarian woman? Are mentally disordered,
physically challenged, woman under anaesthesia etc included?
In landmark case State of Punjab vs. Major Singh15 a three judge SC bench decided, injury to
vagina of a female child of seven and half months can hold accused guilty of outraging
modesty under Section 354.
The judge Sarkar, C.J interpreted that an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was
likely to outrage the woman's modesty be considered along with female’s reaction. Females
of all age do not possess modesty, which can be outraged and dismissed the appeal.
The second judge Mudholkar, quoted ‘modesty’ as not referring to a particular woman but to
the accepted notions of womanly behaviour and society. Whether female has capacity to
understand or not is immaterial, allowed the appeal and held conviction under Section 354.
As per the third judge Bacbawat, J. the expression "woman" denotes a female human being of
any age. The culpable intention to outrage themodesty being the bottom line of the matter and
agreed with the order of Mudholkar.
In yet another landmark case Rupan Deol Bajaj v K.P.S. Gill 16 a DGP who slapped on the
posterior of lady IAS was accused of outraging modesty. A compliant was filed. Later
revision complaint under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C 17 was filed which was quashed by High
Court. The prosecutrix challenged it, SC directed Chief Judicial Magistrate to take
cognizance. Trial found accused guilty under Section 354, 509 IPC and sentenced
imprisonment with fine. In an appeal, Sessions Judge confirmed conviction, altered the
sentence releasing accused on probation with fine enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. On challenging
this, the HC did not interfere with the conviction but enhanced fine to Rs. 2, 00,000/- .This
14
A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 63; See Also Major Singh Lachman Singh v. State, A.I.R. 1963 Punj.443; overruled in Emperor
v. Tatia Mahadev, 14 Bom.L.R. 961.
15
(1995) 6 S.C.C. 194: 1995 S.C.C. (Cri) 1059.
16
The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973,s.428
17
Supra note 1
too was challenged. The SC did not set aside the findings of the various courts and
observations of HC as it had set an example and enhanced the faith of a common man in
judiciary. As accused had completed the period of probation without any complaint or
violation, so no other punishment was warranted and appeal dismissed.

Need for Enhanced Punishment for Outraging the Modesty of Woman U/S
354 IPC
Role of Courts:
They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the
broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant
discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out
an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and
the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases
involving sexual molestations.
Anomaly in Cr.PC:
A plain reading of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals several such
anomalies, and less grave offences appear to have been made non-bailable whereas Section
354 IPC is bailable. Thus, section 324 IPC which only speaks of voluntarily causing simple
hurt by a dangerous weapon or means, and is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry the
psychological harm associated with a criminal assault for outraging a woman's modesty has
been made non-bailable by Act of 2005. House trespass with preparation for causing hurt,
assault etc. even when no hurt is actually caused punishable under section 452 IPC and triable
by a Magistrate is a non-bailable offence.
Summary and Conclusions:
Court observed that “Looking to the rampant and daily increasing prevalence of such crimes
of sexual violence in the State of U.P., M.P., and in Delhi and in other places we think that it
is high time that the State of U.P. and even the Union of India should become sensitive to this
grave issue, and consider imposing stringent laws for putting a check on such crimes of
sexual violence against women and children.”
Need For Harsher Punishment:
SC observed that “.......... In fact, we feel that the sentence was too light considering the
gravity of the offence.” The parade of a tribal woman on the village road in broad day light is
shameful, shocking and outrageous. The dishonor is called for harsher punishment; it is
surprising that the State Government did not file any appeal for enhancement of the
punishment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Hon'ble High Court, therefore, recommend that the State of U.P. and the Unionof India,
consider amending the provisions of section 354 IPC and the First Schedule to then Cr.P.C.
by prescribing a higher sentence for the offence and for making it non-bailable and triable by
a Court of Session. Of course, it is not possible to lay down any cut and dry formula relating
to imposition of sentence but the object of sentencing should be to see that the crime does not
go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has
been done to it.