Skip to main content

Legal Provisions related to Sexual Offences against women

 LEGAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAISNT WOMEN

The law makes it a special crime to use force against a woman, or even threaten to use force, if the intention is to outrage her modesty it treats it more seriously than normal and criminal force by allowing the police to make arrests for such crimes without warrant. The provisions come under section 354 of Indian Penal Code. 

The law does not explain what ‘outraging modesty’ means. Courts usually make this determination by looking at all circumstances surrounding the incident. The Supreme Court referred to ‘modesty’ as feminine decency and a virtue that women possess owing to their sex. The punishment is of between one and five years along with a fine. It is not enough that the victim’s modesty is outraged. It is an offence only when the accused intended or knew it to be likely that the acts in question would outrage the victim’s modesty. 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT:

According to section 354A IPC, sexual harassment is the:

  • Unwelcome touching or other physical contact. 

  • Asking or demand sex or any other sexual activity

  • Making remarks which are of a sexual nature. 

  • Showing pornographic material which may include videos, magazines, books etc.

There is a separate law on sexual at workplaces – the sexual harassment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) Act and Rules 2013. There are provisions in the main criminal law which are different from the special law on sexual harassment. 

  • The IPC is not limited to sexual harassment at the workplace, but punishes such harassment done anywhere. 

  • The IPC makes it possible to file a criminal complaint if you have been sexually harassed, while the special law gives you the option of seeking civil remedies and damages, involving your office administration. 

The punishment for the first three kinds of sexual harassment is three years as compared to the fourth type which is one year. 

PEEPING TOMS PUNISHED

According to Section 354C IPC, it is a crime to look at or capture (say by means of a photograph or video) a woman going about her private acts, where she thinks that no one is watching her. This includes a woman:

  • using a toilet, or

  • who is undressed or in her underwear, or

  • engaged in a sexual act.

The legal term for such acts is voyeurism. The punishment is jail time of between one and three years along with a fine. If someone is found guilty of committing the same crime more than one time, the punishment is jail time of between three and seven years along with a fine.

WHAT IF THE WOMAN AGREES TO HAVE HER PHOTO TAKEN?

If the woman agrees to private photos, it is not a crime to take them. However, if she expects them to remain with only certain people, then sharing them is a crime. The law makes it clear that the woman has to expressly consent to both, watching/taking pictures as well as sharing them, for it to not be an offence.

STALKING

According to Section 354D IPC, Stalking is: 

  • Continuously following a woman or contacting her, 

  • Either online or in person

  • Where she has clearly shown she doesn't want the attention

It is punished by three years for a first offence, and five years for repeat offences. The section makes an exception if a person is stalking a woman as part of a legal duty to do so. The punishment is jail time of up to three years along with a fine. If someone is found guilty of committing the same crime more than one time, the punishment is jail time of up to five years along with a fine.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree