Dating women andhra pradesh alaska dating websites
Under the section the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. Justice Robertson of Punjab Chief Court in Nuna vs.
The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Emperor has held a long back that “where the accused took off a girl’s clothes, threw her on the ground and then set down beside her, he undoubtedly committed an offence under section 354 IPC and was not guilty of an attempt to commit rape”.
The appropriateness of the sentences awarded to him is amply made out”. Again, if the sole test to be applied is the women’s reaction to particular act, would it not be a variable test depending upon the sensitivity or the upbringing of the woman? 354 IPC while the individual reaction of the victim to the act of the accused would be irrelevant, when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind, that act must fall within the mischief of the section and would, constitute an offence under the section. C.63)Justice Bachawat with a serious concern and conviction added that “the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex.
Since the action of the accused (respondent) in interfering with and thereby causing injury to the vagina of the child, who was seven and half months old, was deliberate, he must be deemed to have intended to outrage her modesty”. Even a female of tender age from her very birth possesses the modesty, which is the attribute of her sex.
To my mind, the act of the applicant in confining Saroj in a room, in making her lie on a bed and then sitting on her and becoming naked is clearly one amounting to use of criminal force with the intention or knowledge that the girl’s modesty will be outraged. It may also perhaps, under certain Circumstances, exclude a case where the woman is of depraved moral character.
The applicant has been rightly convicted under section 354 and 342, Penal Code. Could it be said that the legislature intended that the doing of any act to or in the presence of any woman which according to the common notions of mankind is suggestive of sex, would be outside this section unless the woman herself felt that it outraged her modesty? C.63)Justice Mudholkar unhesitatingly declared that “Under s.
There is no suggestion that she had any hesitation in telling her mother exactly what had happened, it was therefore doubtful whether in fact the modesty of the girl was outraged and therefore the conviction ought not to have been under section 354 IPC”. 142)Majority also adopted the same illogical path of ‘victim’s reaction’ and got (im)moral support from Girdhar Gopal Vs.
The girl got terrified at the sight of the accused’s male organ in erection and started shirking.” (1953 Cri. Now before Hon’ble Justices of Supreme Court “the question is (was) whether the respondent (Major Singh) who Caused injury to the private parts of a female child of seven and half months is guilty under s. I would for this reason answer the question in the negative.”(State of Punjab vs. C.63 at page 65, Para 8)With all due regards and reverence, what-so-ever I could understand is that A. Sarkar, the then Chief Justice of India, ‘do not think’ at all like ‘a reasonable man’, because he is not ‘a female child of seven and a half months’, who has been a victim of someone’s unnatural lust and ‘modesty’ is nowhere defined in the statutes or code of the patriarchal society. Earlier in the above said case, a similar question was referred to the Full Bench comprising of Justice Mehar Singh, S. Capoor and Gurdev Singh of Punjab High Court “Whether the appellant (Major Singh) having fingered the private parts of Balvinder, a girl of 7 ½ months, causing injury to those parts, has or has not committed an offence under Section 354 of the Penal Code? State, AIR 1963 Punjab 443) Justice Mehar Singh and Capoor (per majority) adroitly adumbrated that “so far the girl of the age of 7 ½ months is concerned, she is physically incapable of having any sense of modesty or propriety of behavior, and all that can be said is that if she was sufficiently grown-up to have developed such a sense, the act of the accused would have outraged her modesty. 354 cannot be extended in this sense and it is a misnomer to talk of sense of modesty in connection with an infant girl of the age of 7 ½ months.”Legal-eagles sharply reacted “indubitably it is a ‘ridiculous, outrageous, preposterous and retrograde’ judgment in all respect- legally, ethically, morally and logically”.
354 of the Penal Code of the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman”. One may wonder that if this is the intellectual outlook, vision, perspective or sensitivity of the head of ‘judicial family’ of the Nation, it can be very well visualized about the other ‘sentinel of justices’! It seems that the majority was (mis)guided by the judgment in Emperor vs.
The appellant induced her not to say so to her mother as he will provide Rs.10/- to her. Diwan of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rameshwar Vs. She picked up a ‘kulhari’, which was lying nearby and gave an injury on the upper limb of Rameshwar. It was held that “since there was no action on the part of the accused from which it could be inferred that the accused was determined to have sexual intercourse at all events, the accused could not be convicted under section 376 for to attempt to commit rape, but was guilty of committing an offence under section 354”. He urged that the culpable intention of the offender in committing the act is the crux of the matter and not the consequences thereof.
The appellant felled her on the ground and removed her undergarment and ravished her. Shanti Bai that her modesty was outraged inside Bondal‘s House by Bedram is not reliable, worth acceptance, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. Justice Diwan followed the Judgment in state of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mukherjee of Supreme Court observed in Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs. To buttress his contention he invited our attention to the following passage from the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs.
State, wherein on the afternoon of at about 4.30 p.m, Girdhar Gopal who was a Pujari of a mandir caught hold of young girl named Saroj (nine years old) took her to his house on the pretext of giving Prasad to her and when she was inside, he closed the door of room, made her lie on a bed, put a covering on her and then sat upon her, became naked and asked Saroj to removed all her clothes.