LAW OF CRIMES ASSIGNMENT

1. Elaborate upon the various Theories of Punishment and explain the

provisions relating to punishment under the Indian Penal Code:
Mere denunciation of crime is not enough; it must be pushed to its logic end that crime does not
pay by punishing the offenders. Punishment means, “It is the redress that the commonwealth
takes against an offending member” Punishment is some sort of social censure and not
necessarily involving physical pain. H Kelson in his General Theory of Law and State described
“sanction is socially organized consists in a deprivation of possession- life, freedom, or
property”1 According to Jeremy Bentham punishment is evil in the form of remedy which
operates by fear.2
The different theories of punishment are as follows:
Retributive Theory of punishment:
The Retributive Theory of Punishment, or the ‘Theory of Vengeance’, as many people in the
society would perceive it as, is the most basic, yet inconsiderate theory of inflicting a penal
sentence over a perpetrator. It is based on a very small doctrine, namely the doctrine of Lex
talionis, which if translated, means ‘an eye for an eye’. The concept of retributive justice has
been used in a variety of ways, but it is best understood as that form of justice committed to the
following three principles:
1. that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes,
morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment;
2. that it is intrinsically morally good-good without reference to any other goods that might
arise-if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and
3. that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict
disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.
The above three principles clarify the needs for retributive justice even further. We may
understand retributive justice in this manner. The place where both Criminal Law as well as
Moral Law meet, is the place where mostly the retributive punishments are generated.

1
Freeman, M.D.A.Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, (17th Ed.), (London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.
2001). P..282.
2
Jeremy Bentham, The Theory of Legislation, (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd ,1995). p.167.

1
Nirbhaya Judgement: This case is indeed the first and foremost case to be mentioned, while
talking about retributive justice in India. In this Judgement, the Supreme Court sentenced four
out of six felons involved in the extremely heinous Delhi gang rape case to death, much to the
delight of the society, as they had committed an extremely gruesome, as well as morally
unimaginable crime.
In Anwar Ahmad v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,3 the convicted had already undergone
a six month imprisonment term, before being officially convicted by the Court. The Court held
that since the convict had been convicted and also, the required ‘blemish’ had also been imposed
upon him, it was not necessary to sentence him again in the name of ‘retributive punishment’, as
it would inflict a very big loss upon the family as well.
Merits:
1. The theory is very simple. Punishment is an end in itself but Utility theory is means to an end.
Therefore, utilitarian theories are evaluated on parameters of success and failure. This question
does not arise in retributive theory.
2. Retributive punishment is neither cruel nor barbaric but civilized because inflected
punishment is proportionate to the crime that is just. Utility theory recommends more
punishment than the profit of crime.
3. Retributive is impartial and neutral. By inflecting proportionate punishment to the crime, it
considers the interest of wrongdoer and society equal. Reformative theory gives more weight to
interest of criminal and deterrent theory priority would be social interest than criminal.
4. Retributive is based on the Roman doctrine of Poena sous tenere debet actors et non alios
means punishment belongs to the guilty, and not others. It punishes voluntary acts and excludes
involuntary acts based on less blame worthy acts like, act of insane person or immature person.
Utilitarian demands punishment for every kind wrongful act either intended or unintended. So
innocents are likely to be punished which is harsh.
5. Retributist always treat the human being with dignity and honor by saying that the punishment
is an end in itself not means to an end. However utilitarian treat the person either as a commodity
or animal because his punishment used as means to teach lessons to others to prevent crimes,
which degrades the human value.

3
1976 AIR 680

2
6. Hallmark of retributive theory lies in its nature of mercy. Once criminal pays his debt to the
society in the form of punishment, his sin is expiated and admitted back to mainstream of society
again. This kind of philosophy is missing in the deterrent punishment.
Demerits:
1. Retributist have failed to elaborate any guidelines or principles for proportionate punishment
that makes difficult task for judges to measure punishment for crimes.
2. Object of punishment is not only punishing the criminal but to prevent the crime in future also.
Punishment is means to an end not an end itself.
3. Kant philosophy of murder warrants death sentences as not acceptable to the Modern civilized
society.
Utility theory of punishment:
Utilitarian believes the punishment is means to an end and seeks to punish the offenders to
discourage or deter future wrongdoing. Great jurist Jeremy Bentham who was instrumental
behind the utility theory said, “The principal end of punishment is to prevent like offences. What
is past is but one act: the future is infinite. The offence already committed concerns only a single
individual; similar offences may affect all. In many cases it is impossible to redress the evil that
is done; but it is always possible to take away the will to repeat it; for however great may be the
advantage of the offence, the evil of the punishment may be always made to out-weight it.”
Reduction or prevention of crime has to be ultimate object of punishment that has to look
forward not backward as presented by retributist. These theories can be categorized as,
Reformative, (corrective or therapy) Deterrent, preventive and compensatory.
Reformative theory of punishment:
The object of punishment has been considerably under the process of changes from the last
centuries because of the Welfare State concept. Let us give human touch to Criminal Law and
reduce the brutalities of punishment is today’s philosophy of law.24 Reformist looks at sanction
as instrument of rehabilitation and tries to mould the behavior of criminal on the premises that
criminal is not born but made by the environment of society. Therefore, it is the responsibility of
society to reform him by adopting certain suitable methods. The increasing understanding of the
social and psychological causes of crime has led to growing emphasis on reformation rather than
deterrence. Less frequent use of imprisonment, abandonment of short sentences and attempt to

3
use prison as training rather than a pure punishment, and greater employment of probation,
parole and suspended sentences are evidence of reformative trend.4
This approach rejects the deterrence and retributive elements of punishments and impeccably
advocates reformative approach on simple idea that, ‘we must cure our criminal, not kill them’.
The reformative theory is reaction to the deterrent theory, which has failed to take into
consideration of the welfare of criminal. The real objection to reformation is simply that it does
not work. High hopes of reformative theory never materialized and met with repeated failure.
Reformation requires combination of too many disciplines and their attempt has failed to deliver
goods yet hunt is on for right combination to make theory fruitful. Researchers have concluded
that no known or effective methods for reformation of convicted criminal had been demonstrated
“we know nothing about deterrent or reformative effects of any mode or variety of treatment”. 5
There are number objections against reformative theory.
1. Reformative theory expects better infrastructure and facilities in prison, proper co-ordination
between different discipline and persistent effort on their part to mould criminal. It requires huge
investments which poor country cannot afford it.
2. Millions of innocent people who have high regards for law are finding difficult to get basic
amenities postulates ethical justification for providing better facilities inside prison.
3. Moreover, the rationality of the theory is more towards incentives for the commission of crime
rather than prevention.
4. Reformation can work out on those people who can be reformed, there are people who cannot
be reformed like hardcore criminal, highly educated and professional criminals.
5. This theory neglects potential offenders and persons who have committed crime but not within
the arms of law. Further, it overlooks the claims of victims of crimes.
6. Corrupt social environmental is responsible for crime but not individual responsibility, is the
philosophy of reformative which is hard to digest.
Nevertheless, it would be unfair to dismiss the noble concept of reformation as a total failure. All
are familiar with the instances in which unskilled, uneducated and apparently incorrigible
criminals have developed skills in prison, which have transformed them into highly useful
persons.
Deterrent Theory of punishment:
4
Salmond, Jurisprudence, Fitzgerald, P.J.(Ed.) (12th Ed.), (Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt, 2008). p.95
5
Jerome Michael and Mortimer Adler, Crime, Law and Social Science, (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1933).p.49

4
In Deterrent theory of punishment, the term “DETER” means to abstain from doing any
wrongful act. The main aim of this theory is to “deter” (to prevent) the criminals from attempting
any crime or repeating the same crime in future. So, it states that deterring crime by creating a
fear is the objective; to set or establish an example for the individuals or the whole society by
punishing the criminal. That simply means, according to this theory if someone commits any
crime and he/she is punished by a severe punishment, then, it may result maybe that the people
of the society will be or may be aware of the severe punishments for certain kinds of crimes and
because of this fear in the minds of the people of the society, the people may stop from
committing any kind of crime or wrongful act. The deterrent theory of punishment is utilitarian
in nature. For a better understanding we can say like, ‘The man is punished not only because he
has done a wrongful act, but also in order to ensure the crime may not be committed.’
The deterrent theory can be related to the sociological school of Jurisprudence. The sociological
school creates a relationship between the society and law. It indicates law to be a social
phenomenon, with a direct and/or indirect connection to society. One of the main aim of the
deterrence is to establish an example for the individuals in the society by creating a fear of
punishment.
Bentham went to the extent of depriving the criminal’s power of doing injury by awarding death
sentences. Bentham treats the committed offences as an act of past, that should be used as
opportunity of punishing the offenders in such a way that the future offences could be prevented.
Glanville Williams says deterrence is the only ultimate object of punishment. “Punishment
(sanction) is before all things deterrent, and the chief end of the law of crime is to make the
evildoer an example and warning to all that are like minded with him.” This kind of threat is
commonly described as ‘specific’ or ‘individual’ deterrence.
Specific deterrence works in two ways. First, an offender would be put in prison to prevent him
from committing another crime for specific period. Second, this incapacitation is designed to be
so unpleasant that it will discourage the other offender from repeating his criminal behavior.
When individual deterrence is used as means to send message across society is called ‘general’
or ‘community’ deterrence. The higher percentage of criminal being caught and punished would
enhance the credibility of sanctions. Crime does not pay and honesty is the best policy. That is
the message deterrent theory tries to communicate to society. Once deterrent as painful sanction
is accepted, it would oppose better facilities in prison as suggested by the reformist.

5
Preventive theory of punishment:
Even utilitarian like Bentham advocated the preventive remedies which tend to prevent offences.
That some individual need to be restrained is hardly debatable proposition. Even staunchest
advocate of the reformation theory would not contend that a convicted unreformed dangerous
criminal ought to be without restraint while he is being reformed. The target of sanction as
incapacitation is criminal himself and protection comes by physically separating criminal from
the victim and potential victim that denies him ability and an opportunity to commit further
crime.
Preventive philosophy is the best mode of punishment because it serves as effective deterrent and
also useful preventive measures. The effective of preventive theory much depends upon
promptness and proportion factors. The delay in inquires or investigation by the public authority
makes sanction ineffective. The effectiveness of sanction is further scaled down as courts grants
bail to accused on the ground that accused presumed to be innocent until guilt is proved. There is
considerable dispute, as to who should be restrained and how long. Confinement should involve
the least restraint needed to furnish reasonable protection against crime.The naked truth is that
protection can never be absolute. Certain amount of crime is inevitable and society must take
chance against them. Effective incapacitate depends upon various factors like, criminal’s history,
background, and personality. In spite of all these things it is not possible to predict accurately
whether or not a particular criminal will repeat crime. Incapacitation should not be
disproportionate, wasteful and expensive. Unless restraint is either permanent or is coupled with
a meaningful rehabilitative program imprisonment will not restrain criminal conduct, but will
merely postpone it. Incapacitation affects ability and an opportunity to commit criminal act, but
has no influence on emotional and criminal intent and expectation of profit. Therefore,
incapacitation is being temporary than permanent.
Compensatory theory of punishment:
The criminal justice system is incomplete is the major allegation made by the victims of crime,
which is in fact true. The entire focus of the criminal justice system is on the offender, to punish
him or to seek his reformation and rehabilitation with all the resources and goodwill available
through courts and other governmental and nongovernmental agencies.6 The victims of crimes
are, on the other hand, forgotten people in the system.

6
Ahmad Siddique, Criminology, (5th Ed.), ( S.M.A Qadri, Ed. ), (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2005).p.544.

6
Compensation to victim of crime rests primarily on two grounds. Firstly, a criminal who inflicted
injury against persons or property must compensate for the loss, and second, a State that failed to
protect victim must pay compensation to him. The United Nation General Assembly in 1985
adopted the declaration known as “Basic Principles of Justice for victims of Crime and Abuse of
power” which is called as Magna Carta of Rights of victims.64 Principle 9 of the declaration
provides “Government should review their practices regulations and laws to consider restitution
as an available sentencing option in criminal cases in addition to other criminal sanctions.”
Section of 357(1) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC) empowers court to grant amount to
victim of the offence out of fine imposed as part of the sentence. Under section 357(3) of CrPC,
court may nevertheless order accused person to pay a certain sum of compensation to victim
where no fine is imposed as part of sentence. Compensation is payable to victim of the crime
only when fine is not imposed as part of sentence which is unfair because amount of fine is
meager compare to the compensation. Moreover, incurred expenses of prosecution are deducted
from the fine and remaining amount is paid to victim of crime, therefore, victim gets small
amount that would not amount to justice. Courts have generally restored to sentence of fine in
addition to imprisonment but compensation provision is invoked seldom because power is
discretionary. Further, there is injustice, when ordered payment of compensation is not complied
by accused; there is no provision in law for imposing penalty for such non-compliance. On the
other hand, non-payment of fine may lead to extension of period of imprisonment. The Supreme
Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab7 observed that if the accused is in a position to pay
the compensation to the injured, there could be no reason for the court not directing such
compensation.
Provisions related to punishment under Indian Penal code:
Section 53, specifically deals with different types of punishments which can be given by the
Criminal Courts if the person is held liable under the Code:
Death Sentence: The death sentence is a punishment which is sanctioned by the government and
ordered by the court where a person is put to death for a crime acted by him. It is also referred to
as ‘Capital Punishment’. The act of carrying out such practice is called execution. In India, the
death penalty is given by the method of hanging. The other ways through which death sentences

7
(1978) 3 SCC 799

7
executed at world scenarios are stoning, sawing, blowing from a gun, lethal injection,
electrocution, etc.
The subject of death sentence always has been a matter of controversy. While considering the
Constitution as the supreme, the validity of death sentence v/s fundamental rights constantly
came forward for the debates. However, the death sentences are rarely given in the Indian
criminal courts. In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,8 the Supreme Court held that
capital punishment shall be given in the “rarest of the rare” case. However, what constitutes the
“rarest of the rare cases” is not prescribed by the Supreme Court or by the legislature.
Imprisonment for Life: Life imprisonment is one of the types of punishment which is
recognized under Section 53 of the IPC. Earlier this was also known as transportation for life.
This punishment is given for serious crimes wherein the convicted remains in prison until his/her
last breath. Section 57 of the IPC is used when fractions of terms of punishment need to be
calculated. However, it is important to understand that this section does not give any implied or
explicit right to the prisoner to reduce his life imprisonment to 20 years of the sentence.
Imprisonment: The general meaning of imprisonment means captivity or to put someone in
prison. Under Section 53 of IPC, imprisonment can be of two types. One is simple and the other
is rigorous. As per Section 60 of the IPC, the competent court has the discretion to decide the
description of sentencing. It can be of various types, like:
 Wholly or partly rigorous; or
 Wholly or partly simple; or
 Any term to be rigorous and the rest simple.
Forfeiture of Property: Forfeiture generally means the loss of property without any
compensation in return, which is the result of the default caused by the person in terms of
contractual obligation, or in paying penalty for illegal conduct.
In two provisions the forfeiture of the property has been abolished:
Under Section 126 for committing depredation on territories of Power at peace with the
Government of India.
Under Section 127 for receiving property taken during war or depredation mentioned in sections
126 and 126 of IPC.

8
AIR 1980 SC 898

8
Fine: The court may impose a fine as an alternative for imprisonment or can add it is an addition
to the imprisonment. In certain cases the fine is added along with imprisonment. Section 63 to 69
covers various fines under the IPC. However, as per Section 64 of the Code, when there is a
default in the payment of a fine, the court may order for imprisonment. As per Section 63 of the
IPC, when the sum is not expressed under the provisions of the Code, the amount of fine to
which the offender is liable is unlimited, however, the fine shall not be excessive.
Under Section 66 of the IPC, the court has the discretion to provide any description for the
imprisonment.
As per Section 65 of IPC, the court shall limit the imprisonment when the offender is sentenced
to imprisonment and fine because of non-payment of fine. The limit of imprisonment shall not
exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum period of the particular
offence.
Under Section 67 of IPC, the offences for which this section will be applicable is the offence
which is punishable with fine only.
The imprisonment so awarded shall be simple only;
However, the term shall not exceed the following scale:
 If fine does not exceed Rs. 50- the term shall not exceed two months;
 If fine does not exceed Rs. 100- the term shall not exceed four months;
 If fine exceeding of Rs. 100 to any amount- term shall not exceed six months.
Conviction for Doubtful Offences: As per Section 72 of the IPC, when there is doubt regarding
which offence has been committed by the offender and there is a problem to get evidence for the
offences committed by the offender, in such circumstances the court can give the lowest
punishment if the same punishment provided for all.
Solitary Confinement: Section 73 of the IPC covers solitary confinement (“Sol. Conf.”). The
Code gives the description of the way punishment to be ordered by the Court. While giving
solitary confinement the court shall keep in mind not to exceed three months in total. The scale is
as follows:
 If the term not exceeds more than six months- Sol. Conf. not exceeding one month;
 If the term exceeds more than six months but not exceed one year- Sol. Conf. not
exceeding two months;
 If the term exceeds one year- Sol. Conf. not exceeding three months.

9
Section 74 of the IPC gives the limit of Solitary Confinement while executing the Sol. Conf. the
duration shall not exceed fourteen days. And further, if the solitary confinement given exceed
three months, then confinement shall not exceed 7 days in one month.
Enhanced Punishment: Under Section 75 of the Code when a person is convicted for the
second time of an offence which is punishable under Chapter XII (Offences Relating to Coin and
Government Stamps) or Chapter XVII (Offences Against Property), if sentenced for more than
three years imprisonment, they are liable to greatly enhanced sentence.

2. Explain in brief all the offences relating to women under the Indian
Penal Code:

10
Women have been guaranteed Right to Equality under the Constitution of India. In order uphold
and implement the Constitutional Mandate, the Government from time to time has enacted
various laws and taken measures intended to ensure equal rights, curb social discrimination &
various forms of violence and atrocities against women. In the present scenario, the violence and
the increasing crimes against women is witnessed by everyone across the world in some or the
other manner. It indicates the enormity and pensiveness of the monstrosity perpetrated against
women in recent years. The global crusade for the decimation of violence against women is a
proof to this fact. The changes in the living standards, lifestyle, imbalance in the economic
growth, changes in social ethos and meager concern for the moral values contribute to a vicious
outlook towards women due to which there is multiplication in crimes against women.
Moreover, such incidents are a matter of grave concern and its structure is absolutely necessary
so that the women of India could live with respect, honour, dignity, liberty and peace in an
atmosphere free from atrocities, denigration and heinous crimes.
The Crime Against Women means direct or indirect physical or mental cruelty to women or
crimes in which women are victims are characterized as Crime Against Women. The official
reports clearly showed a declining sex-ratio between men and women, health status of women,
literacy rate of women, work participation rate and political participation of women. While on
the other hand the spread of social evils like dowry deaths, child marriage, domestic violence,
rape, sexual harassment, exploitation of women workers are increasing day by day in different
parts of India. Humiliation, rape, kidnapping, molestation, dowry death, torture, wife-beating etc.
have grown up over the years.
Crimes against Women under the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, lays down the provisions to penalise the culprit for the heinous
offences against women. Various sections under IPC specifically deal with such crimes:
Rape (Sec.376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D):
Section 375 to 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the sexual offences against women.
In simple term it can be said that sexual intercourse with a women without her consent is “rape”.
Section 375 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that:
A man is said to commit “rape” if he- penetrates his penis or insert any object or a part of body
in to vagina, anus, mouth, urethra of a woman or make her to do so with him or any person; or
manipulates any part of body of a women so as to cause penetration in to vagina, anus, mouth,

11
urethra of a woman or make her to do so with him or any person; or applies his mouth to the
vagina, anus, mouth, urethra of a woman or make her to do so with him or any person,
Under the circumstances,
Firstly- Against her will.
Secondly- Without her consent.
Thirdly- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in
whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that consent is
given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be
lawfully married.
Fifthly- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of
mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any
stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences
of that to which she gives consent.
Sixth- With or without her consent, when she is under age of eighteen years.
Seventhly- when she is unable to communicate consent.
Exception1- A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.
Exception 2- Sexual intercourse by man with her consent his own wife, the wife not being under
fifteen years of age, is not rape.
In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana,9 the Court held that intercourse under the promise of
marry constitute rape only if from initial stage accused had no intention to keep promise and the
intention of the accused was mala fide and that he had clandestine motive.
Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes punishment for the crime.
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished
with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years
but which may be for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever,-
(a) Being a police officer commits rape-
(i) Within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or

9
(AIR 2013 SC 2017)

12
(ii) In the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he
is appointed; or
(iii) On a woman is his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or
(b) Being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman
in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) being a member of armed force deployed in area by the Central or a State Government
commits rape in such are, or
(d) Being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody
established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s or children’s
institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail,
remand home, place or institution; or
(e) Being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position
and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(f) Being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards
the women, commits rape on such woman. Or
(g) Commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
(h) Commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(j) Commits rape, on a women incapable of giving consent; or
(k) Being in a position of control or dominance over the women, commits rape on such woman;
or
(l) Commits rape on a woman suffering from a mental or physical disability; or
(m) While committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endanger the
life of woman; or
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be extend to imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen year of age shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years but which may be
extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that
person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Kidnapping (Section 359, 360, 366):

13
The term kidnapping refers to two kind of kidnapping under section 359 of the Indian Penal
Code which are kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code prescribed punishment for the kidnapping.
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 may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(Section 366) Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc:
Section 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with
intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it 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
knowing 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 woman to go from any place
with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to
illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.
Assault to outrage modesty (Sec.354):
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.
Domestic violence (Sec. 498A):
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the woman; or

14
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Sexual harassment (Sec. 354A):
According to section 354A of Indian penal code,
(1) A man committing any of the following acts:
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,
shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-
section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.
Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe (Section 354B):
Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention
of disrobing1 or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Dowry deaths:
Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that,
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry
death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation- For
the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

15
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Eve Teasing (Sec. 509):
Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code states that Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any
woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such
word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or
intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Chain snatching (Sec. 378):
Section 378 of The Indian Penal Code deals with the crime of theft. Chain snatching is one of the
active crime of theft against the women in the modern society. The women belonging to the old
age are most affected group of this crime.
Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that whoever, intending to take dishonestly
any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves
that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Acid attack (Sec. 326A, 326B):
Acid attack is one of the most dangerous crime against the women. The younger generation of
women is mostly affected by this heinous crime.
Section 326A: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc:
Section 326 states that whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or
maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt
by throwing acid1 on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with
the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine;
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the
treatment of the victim;
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
Section 326B: Voluntarily throwing or attempt to throw acid:
Section 326B states that whoever throws or attempts to throw acid1 on any person or attempts to
administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing

16
permanent or partial damage or deformity or bums or maiming or disfigurement or disability or
grievous hurt to that person, 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 shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanations-
For the purposes of section 326A and this section, “acid” includes any substance which has
acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to
scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity
shall not be required to be irreversible.
Stalking (Sec. 354D):
Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code states that any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication, commits the offence of stalking;
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that:
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of
stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the
State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by
any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Women trafficking (Sec. 370, 370A, 372 373):

Section 372 in The Indian Penal Code deals with the trafficking of person.

17
(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 is 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.
(Section373) 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.

18