Under the Indian Penal Code, all such acts include staring at women, making sexual appeals with them and having sex with them, being naked in front of them, sending them pornographic photos and reading pornographic movies and reading pornographic stories or acts. . . Cognitive deterioration in the category of crime and the police register an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC under these offenses, the state prosecutes these offenses on its behalf.

Chasing is Crime Against Women, Propaganda

In this article, crimes against women are treated as minor offenses and those crimes are cited. These offenses appear to be minor, but the Indian Penal Code does not consider such offenses to be minor, and such offenses can carry imprisonment up to 7 years and a lengthy trial. 

Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code 

under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever intends to dissolve the shame of a woman, knowing that he will molest and embarrass her, attack the woman or He shall use criminal force, imprisonment for any post which shall not be less than 1 year but which may extend to 5 years, shall be punished and shall also be punished with fine.

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is a punishable offense related to assault with intent to embarrass a woman. This offense carries a minimum imprisonment of 1 year which can be up to a maximum of 5 years. 

There is a case of Pramod Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, in which the accused was accused of raping a 9-year-old girl Rita Kumari, but medical and other evidence showed that the virginity of this girl was not broken and Nor were there any bruises or bruises on his body and sexual organs. It was considered a matter of humiliation for a woman, not of rape.

Because this is an old case and a girl's virginity was tested in this case. In later cases, testing of virginity was considered against human rights in relation to a serious crime such as rape. 

1996 Supreme Court case of Smt Rupam Deval Bajaj Vs. KPS Gill. The most famous episode is this episode running under Section 354. In this case, Smt. Rupal Deval Bajaj is an IAS officer of Punjab cadre who violates shame. 

At the time of the incident, she was working as Special Secretary in the Finance Department of Punjab. She went to a feast with SL Kapoor on 18 July 1988. Many senior officials of the Punjab government were also involved in that feast. Punjab Director General of Police KPS Gill was also invited to the feast. Deval had said that it would be around 10:00 in the night, with KPS Gill asking him to sit nearby and get up again. Gill hit his hand when he woke up. 

Deval felt it very bad. He filed the first information report against Gill on 29 July 1988 under sections 341, 342, 352, 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. When no effective action against Gill was likely in this case, Deval knocked in the Supreme Court. 

Keeping in view the elements of the case, the Supreme Court found prima facie case against Gill under sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the magistrate to take cognizance.

In this case, KPS Gill was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and 17 years long. 

Section 354 is an important case of SP Malik v. State of Orissa. In this case, it was determined that merely laying hands on a woman's belly cannot be considered a violation of a woman's shame under Section 354. It is also necessary to have the intention to dissolve shame.

In a suit later, in Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 Supreme Court 643, the Supreme Court holds the woman in the back and is holding her chest in the arms of the woman in shame.

The court has said that the insult of a woman is often not false because in general no woman wants to stake her character. A woman goes to the police station only when a major incident involving her dignity and dignity decreases. 

Under Section 354 of the IPC, for the offense of violating the shame of the woman, it is sufficient for the accused to know that it is possible for the woman to be defamed by her act. It is not always necessary for intent nor is it the only criterion. 

Any act which makes it possible that a woman will be disturbed by shame is an offense under Section 354. Pulling a woman and removing clothes for the purpose of sex with her is a crime of insulting a woman. Aman Kumar v. Haryana AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1497. 

Removing her scarf or sari from the woman's chest will also be considered a matter of shame. Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 (1677) 

physical contact and certain acts in which sexual relations are being proposed. (Section 354A)

Under section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, a woman commits physical contact and certain acts in which sexual relations are being proposed. , Which would be considered a demand for sex. 

Or requests a woman to have sex, that is, to have sex. Or shows pornography to a woman against her will or sends pornographic photographs, in such a case that porn will be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to a man who may extend to 3 years or with a fine.

Today is the time for information technology. At such times, women are sent pornographic images and pornographic messages through software like WhatsApp Messenger etc., which are like seeking sex with them. It is a cognizable offense with imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine. 

Use of criminal force with the intention of snatching a woman (Section 354B) 

If a man attacks or uses criminal force against a woman with the intention of going naked in a public place or doing any kind of imprisonment Will be punished by Which may extend to a minimum period of 3 years and extend for a maximum period of 7 years and shall also be accompanied by a fine. 

Sometimes women's clothes get clogged up in controversies and naked in the middle market. The witch is taken out in procession and thrown into their procession. It is a cognizable offense. 

In this type of crime, police arrest without a warrant and a computerized FIR are registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Staring at women and taking pictures of them (Section 354C) 

When a woman is engaged in any of her personal work, such as changing of clothes or bathing, or any kind of work that she does in private. While doing this kind of work, if a man would stare at the woman and take pictures of her and broadcast those pictures, then such a man should not be imprisoned for at least 1 year and not more than 3 years for the first time. . There may be jail. 

The second time, if convicted in the same crime, can be imprisoned for a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 7 years. 

Chasing a woman and trying to contact her repeatedly (Section 354D) 

Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment in respect of offenders who pursue women. 

Today, it is seen in society that there are explosions behind girls and it becomes difficult for them to go to school. Schools chase the college bus and this is not the case. Today in the Internet age, people of this criminal malicious mindset repeatedly monitor a woman using email or any other electronic information and try to contact them again and again. We do. 

It is a punishable offense which is cognizable and non-bailable. Provision for imprisonment for a maximum of 3 years on the first conviction of this type of offense and maximum of 5 years imprisonment and fine on the second conviction. 

Dismissing the shame of a woman under section 354 and tearing of women's clothes under (354D) is the most serious offense which can also carry imprisonment up to a maximum of 7 years and fine.

Post a Comment

Please don't enter any spam link in comment box

Previous Post Next Post