350 - Criminal force

Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the
committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be
likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom
the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
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, 4[shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years,
and shall also be liable to fine.]

Premiya @ Prem Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/4115/2008

“In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC mere knowledge that the modesty of a
woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such
outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all
cases. (See State of Punjab v. Major Singh MANU/SC/0295/1966 : 1967CriLJ1 . A careful
approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty.
The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under:

(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;

(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and

(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her
modesty.
Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be
committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such
act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially
things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention
or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the
alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and indignation is in
the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. In the
instant case after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial court and the High Court have
found the accused guilty. But the offence is Section 354 IPC.”
Karna Das and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura (10.08.2018 - Tripura) : MANU/TR/0162/2018
Defines and enumerates S. 354 though the conviction was changed from S. 376 to S. 354.
Ujesh vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (05.07.2022 - KERHC) : MANU/KE/2109/2022
“The prosecution allegation is that on 22.02.2013 while the 2nd respondent was proceeding to
Changanasserry from her home and when she reached a place called Kuttisserykadavu, the
petitioner came and asked her about the dispute he had with her husband. It is further alleged
that, when she proceeded further without hearing what he said, the petitioner followed her and
caught hold of her hair from her backside, and hit on her right eye with a stone. It is further
alleged that, when she cried, the petitioner kicked on her abdomen. Again, he beat him with his
right hand on her ribs. She further stated that when the people of the locality gathered there, the
petitioner ran away throwing away the stone. This is the sum and substance of the allegation
levelled against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in the FIS. In the further statement, the 2nd
respondent has simply added that, on account of the above-mentioned act of the petitioner, she
felt humiliated. Thus, on reading of the FIS as well as the 161 statement given by the 2nd
respondent, it is evident that the petitioner attacked and assaulted her due to the property dispute
between them. The sequence of events narrated by the 2nd respondent would not suggest any
intention on the part of the petitioner to dishonor or outrage her modesty. As stated already, the
test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged or dishonored is the action of the
offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of
a woman. When the above test is applied in the present case, it cannot be held that the alleged act
of the petitioner amounts to either dishonoring or outraging of the modesty of the 2nd
respondent.”
Maneesh Mohan vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (01.02.2021 - KERHC) : MANU/KE/0172/2021
Accused released due to changes in statement of victim and provided motivation for the
allegation