CODE

OFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROJECT

ON
Outraging the modesty of woman, criminal trial and process
Under the supervision of Prof. Ashish Jain
submitted by:
Amritam Shankar Yadav
SAP-500071424, Roll-115
Aryan Dev
SAP-500071323, Roll-103
Corporate law B-II,
semester-IV.
INTRODUCTION
Outraging any person’s modesty in literal terms means that anything you did on the opposite
gender..physical,emotional territories without the consent of a person. It is basically meant for
the women in the society and section 354 of the indian penal code deals with it explaining about
assault or criminal force to women with intent to outrage her modesty. Modesty, as 'womanly
propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct; reserve or sense of
shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions, Oxford English
Dictionary (1993 Edn.); Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371.
Modesty, as freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress,
speech or conduct, (Webster's Third New International Dictionary); Raju Pandurang Mahale v.
State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371.But the question here arises that in today’s generation
any persons modesty can be outraged , be it women or men. so we are going to discuss how a
man’s modesty is outraged and what are the criminal trial and process for it. As till now
outraging the modesty of the person was thought to be solely against women of the socieThis
belief is still held in some parts of the world, but outraging the modesty of men is now
commonly criminalized and has been subject to more discussion than in the past.

Section 354, INDIAN PENAL CODE

Section 354, IPC,has been enacted with a view to protect a woman against indecent assault. The
object of the provisions as contained in Section 354 IPC is to protect a woman against indecent
behavior of others which is offensive to morality. In fact, these offences are as much in the
interest of the woman as in the interest of public morality and decent behavior. These offences
are not only offences against individual but against public morals and society as well. This
section punishes an assault on, or use of criminal force to, a woman with the intention of
outraging her modesty or with the knowledge that it is likely that he will thereby outrage her
modesty. ‘Outraging the Modesty of a Woman’ is a phrase which is open ended and could be
interpreted depending upon different facts & circumstances and the understanding of the
interpreter, because what can be termed as modesty for one woman, need not necessarily be the
same for the some other woman. In the absence of an extensive definition of ‘modesty’ and
‘intension of outraging’, courts have displayed a patriarchal mindset in dealing with the victim,
Although, there are instances where this section provides an edge to a woman who wants to
settle her personal score or is ambitious. The alleged was arrested for a offence under section 354
on a false complaint, that the accused caught hold of her hand and threatened to pull her sari, the
accused underwent torture and termed as mentally ill whereas later was proved innocent and set
free1 . Therefore, there is a need to understand the intricacies of the section and its ambit. The
offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with permission of the Court,
pending and triable by any Magistrate.

UNDERSTANDING – ‘INTENDING TO OUTRAGE’

There must be either an assault or use of criminal force against a woman who according to
section 10 of the Indian Penal Code is a female human being of any age. The offender must
either intend to outrage the modesty of the woman, or must know that he is thereby likely to
outrage her modesty. Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana2 , the court tried to define the term 1
M.A. Nayyem Farooqui v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1998(1) ALD 103 2 AIR 2004 SC 1497 2
‘outraging the modesty of woman’, saying that 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 as
woman, and knowledge that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the
offence. Where the accused persons were alleged to have removed the ‘Sari’ of the victim but
had run away on seeing some persons and there was no material showing that the accused were
determined to have sexual intercourse in all events, it was held that they were guilty under
Section 3543 . In Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill4 there was an alleged act of top most
official of the State Police in slapping a senior lady officer on her posterior in presence of a
gathering of elite of the society. In fact the situation amounted to outraging the modesty of the
lady officer. There was nothing in the FIR that the alleged act was committed accidentally or by
mistake or it was a slip. The allegations in the FIR made out offences under sections 354 and 509
of the Code. It was held by the Supreme Court that the offence relating to modesty of a woman
not being trivial section 95 of the Code was not attracted, and that quashing of the FIR and the
complaint by the High Court was illegal especially in absence of the finding that allegations
made in the FIR were absurd and inherently impossible. In Kanwar Pal S. Gill v. Stale (Admn.
U.T. Chandigarh)5 , the accused gently slapped on the posterior of the prosecutrix in presence of
some guests. It is proved that he used criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the
complainant and that he knew fully well that the slapping would embarrass her. In Ram Pratap v.
State of Rajasthan6 the accused was alleged to have entered the victim’s house when she was
alone and misbehaved with her by making her lie down on a cot. There was no preparation to
commit rape or undressing by him. The Rajasthan High Court held him guilty under section 354.
Therefore, any act with the slightest of intension to insult or impart the feeling of uncomfortable
surrounding on the part of the accused could result in the conviction under Section 354

EXTENSIVE DEFINITION OF MODESTY

It would seem to follow that modesty is considered to be an attribute of every female since her
birth and an outrage against a wife will be punishable irrespective of the fact that she is of a
tender age or developed enough understanding so as to appreciate the nature of the act, or to
realize that it is offensive to her senses. Modesty is an inherent characteristic of womanhood
independent of any individual’s personality. Outraging a woman's modesty as mentioned in
Section 354 will apply to crimes against women that stop short of penetration and the accused is
not convicted for rape. The term ‘modesty’ in the dictionary has been defined as the quality of
being modest, decency, etc. the word decent means that which is not obscene , reasonably good,
fair confirming to approved social standards, kind, respectable.7 Catching hold of a woman by
her arm and dragging her may also amount to an outrage irrespective of the fact that the act is
done in the presence of others or not.8 Throwing her on the ground is outrageous] as the act as
unkind and indecent. The Madhya Pradesh High Court10 if of the opinion that the word ‘he’
used in section 354 includes ‘she also vide section 8 of the IPC and therefore, under this section
a man as well as a woman can be convicted of assaulting or using criminal force to a woman
with the intension or knowledge as referred to in the section. The offence under Sec. 354 of IPC
can be considered to be committed by the woman accused then only intention to commit the
crime is not sole criterion. The offence under this Section can also be committed by any woman
assaulting or using criminal force on any woman if HE knows that the act is likely to affect the
modesty of a woman11 . In State v. Major Singh12 the accused walked into a room where a
female child of seven and a half months was sleeping. He stripped himself naked below his waist
and kneeled over the child and fingered her vagina, ruptured her hymen and caused a tear in her
vagina. The Supreme Court while holding him guilty under section 354 observed that when any
act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common
notions of mankind that act will fall within this section. The essence of a woman’s modesty is
her sex. The culpable intention or knowledge of the accused is the crux of the matter.

THE CONTROVERSIES AND NEBULOUSNESS

AROUND THE WORD – WOMEN

The earlier interpretation in Soka v. emperor13 that protection of the provision is available to
women who are old enough to feel the sense of modesty and whose sense of modesty is
sufficiently developed is no longer acceptable. In landmark case State of Punjab v. Major
Singh14, with majority 2:1, the accused was held guilty under S. 354 IPC, and there was an
attempt to define at what age woman could constitute modesty. The Judge Sarkar, CJ, interpreted
that an act done with the intension 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, quotes ‘modesty
as not referring to a particular woman but to the accepted notions of womanly behavior 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. In Girdhar Gopal v. State15, the applicant who is
Pujari took a nine year old girl to his home under the pretext of giving “Prasad”, 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 her clothes. Later the girl’s brother and neighbor rescued her. The accused was found
guilty under section 354 of IPC and was sentenced to one year imprisonment. In Ram Kripal v.
State of Madhya Pradesh16 the Supreme Court observed that modesty in section 354 of the Code
is an attribute associated with female human being as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a
female owing to her sex. Therefore woman of any age, an infant, a child or an adult is protected
under the provision of this section.

Sentencing
In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly violent crime against women has made
the criminal sentencing by the courts a subject of concern. Today there are admitted
disparities. Some criminals get very harsh sentences while many receive grossly different
sentence for a essentially equivalent crime and a shockingly large number even go unpunished,
thereby encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the
system's credibility.
In imposing sentences, in the absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of
factors and after considering all those factors and taking an over-all view of the situation,
impose sentence which they consider to be an appropriate one. Aggravating factors cannot
be ignored and similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be taken into consideration.
The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the
conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of
appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for
justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment fitting
to the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not
only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the
society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.
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.
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 the section
assaults, not only on girls of tender age but on even grown up women when such a woman is
sleeping and did not wake up or is under anesthesia or stupor or is an idiot. [7] It may also
perhaps, under certain circumstances, exclude a case where the woman is of depraved moral
character. Could it be said that the legislature intended that the doing of any act to or in the
presence of any woman whom according to the common notions of mankind is suggestive of
sex, would be outside this section unless the woman herself felt that it outraged her
modesty?

CASES

Ramkripal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh air 2007(crl.)

- Ramkripal was found guilty of offences punishable under section 376 of IPC and was punished
with imprisonment for seven years. Ramkripal then challenged this decision in appellant court.
In a field near Makrarbandh the victim went to bring green grass and after collecting it she was
on her way back to home. Ramkripal came and proposed her for sexual intercourse. The victim
protested and also told that she will inform her mother. The appellant persuaded her not to tell
anything to her mother and he will provide Rs. 10/- to her. The appellant threw her on ground
and removed her clothes and ravished her. The victim was crying in pain and to this the appellant
had stuffed her mouth with clothes. He gave her immense pain as his genital penetrated into her
genital, and thereafter he left her. She saw blood flowing from her private part which has
besmeared her undergarment. In this case it was noted that the provision makes penal assault or
use of criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty.

State of Punjab v. Major Singh, air 1967

-Major Singh was accused of interfering with the vagina of seven and half month-old child and
deemed to outrage her modesty. This case is an appeal from the judgement and order dated May
31, 1963 of the Punjab High Court. The matter was heard by three learned Judges, two of whom
did not hold the person guilty while the third judge held him guilty. Hence this appeal is
preferred by the state . The difficulty in this case was caused by the words “outrage her
modesty”. The learned judges of the High Court held, that these words showed that there must be
a subjective element so far as the woman against whom criminal force was used is concerned.
The judges took the view that the offence could be said to have been committed only when the
women felt that her modesty had been outraged. According to them, the test of outrage of
modesty was the reaction of the women concerned . The view of the third judge, who answered
the question in the affirmative, was that the word “modesty” meant, accepted notions of
womanly modesty and not the notions of the women against whom the offence was committed.
According to his observation the section was intended as much in the interest of the woman
concerned as in the interest of public morality and decent behaviour
 REFINING THE LAW
The state of Andhra Pradesh however took an initiative in 1991 by following substitution for
section 354 –‘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, 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 2
years.17 Increasing the punishment creates the greater the effect of deterrence in the mind of the
accused and therefore a probability of non-commencement of the offence.
 CONCLUSION
The judicial decision making is done in the ‘laboratories’ of the lower court, which have two
options: fall back on traditional rules of practice, or make a rather uneducated guess as to how to
proceed in a new direction. The first course halts the evolution of practice and legal doctrine, the
second leads to inevitably to inconsistency in decisions. The dilemma in both the situations
becomes more awkward in the absence of a liberal and expansive definition of ‘modesty’ and
‘intension of outraging’, under section 354. The law needs to be precise and crystal clear in its
definition, as the modern society heavily relies on law. The law should not fail to achieve the
goals enshrined in the constitution for the emancipation of woman in India and should fully
protect her from sexual predators or else woman justice will be fragile myth.