Q. Under what circumstances theft becomes robbery and extortion becomes robbery?

Ans: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery   

Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in
carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for
that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful
restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery  

Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the
presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of
instant death, instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other
person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver
up the thing extorted.

Illustrations

(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes, without
Z's consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has
voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.

(b) A meets Z on the high-road, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse, Z, in consequence,
surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant
hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore
committed robbery.

(c) A meets Z and Z's child on the high-road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down
a precipice, unless Z deliver his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has
extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there
present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.

(d) A obtains property from Z by saying-"Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be
put to death unless you send us ten thousand taka”. This is extortion, and punishable as such:
but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

Q. Write a note on ‘Outraging modesty of woman’.

Ans: What is ‘modesty’?

In State of Punjab v. Major Singh, the Supreme Court held that the essence of woman’s
modesty is sex and anyone who has committed an act against a woman which is clearly
suggestive of sex, then such acts shall be punished under section 354 of IPC. In this case, the
accused had walked into the room of a seven and half months old female child, he was held
to have committed an offence under section 354 as he had intentionally outraged the modesty
of the child by committing an indecent act. The Supreme Court held the accused liable as he
had outraged the whatever modesty the little victim was capable of.

Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code

354. 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.
The ambit of IPC 354 widened with the insertion of four new sections through the Criminal
Law Amendment Act (13 of 2013). These sections are Section 354 A, Section 354 B, Section
354 C, and Section 354 D respectively. The term ‘assault’ means to cause a physical attack. 

The offence under section 354 is said to be constituted if the following essentials are present
in the act committed-
1. Use of assault or criminal force against a woman: Assault not only means the situations
where a woman is physically assaulted. It also includes any verbal acts as well as gestures of
a person intending to outrage the modesty of a woman. 

2. Intention to outrage the modesty of that woman: Therefore, to establish the case under
section 354, the prosecution must not only prove the use of assault or criminal force against
the woman but also the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman must be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. For the defence in the cases under section 354, it is very essential to
establish that the woman was a consenting party in the act. It is a well-settled principle that if
the woman is a consenting party to the act, there cannot be any outraging of modesty.

In the case of Divender Singh v. Hari Ram[v], the Court held that if a girl is pushed and
beaten up by a man, it establishes the fact of assault and not the intention to outrage the girl’s
modesty. Therefore, the proof of culpable intention to outrage the modesty of the woman is
very vital in cases under section 354.

Provisions for punishment-

The provision under section 354 also provides for punishment in case of any act resulting to
use of assault or criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty of a woman.
Previously, the section prescribed imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or
fine or both. After the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, the punishment for the offence
under section 354 is imprisonment which shall not be of a term less than 1 year but which
may extend to 5 years and shall also be liable to fine.