SECTION 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC

Sections 354A, 354B, 354C, and 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deal with various aspects of sexual harassment, stalking, and voyeurism. These sections were introduced as amendments to the IPC to address issues related to the safety and dignity of women. Here is an overview of each of these sections:

Section 354A – Sexual Harassment:

  • Section 354A deals with the offense of sexual harassment. It criminalizes unwelcome physical contact, making sexually colored remarks, or making unwelcome sexual advances.
  • This section defines various acts, such as making sexually colored remarks or gestures, demanding sexual favors, or any other unwelcome physical conduct with sexual intent.
  • It also provides for punishment, which may include imprisonment for up to three years or a fine or both.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):

  • While not a case under Section 354A per se, this landmark case led to the formulation of guidelines known as the Vishaka Guidelines for preventing and addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. It played a significant role in addressing sexual harassment as a serious offense.

Section 354B – Assault or Use of Criminal Force to Woman with Intent to Disrobe:

  • Section 354B specifically deals with the act of assault or the use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe her.
  • The offense involves forcibly attempting to disrobe a woman or compelling her to be naked against her will.
  • The punishment for an offense under Section 354B may include imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years, a fine, or both.

State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1967):

  • In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that “modesty” includes the idea of protection of a woman’s person, and any act with the intent to outrage a woman’s modesty is punishable under Section 354B.

Section 354C – Voyeurism:

  • Section 354C deals with the offense of voyeurism, which involves capturing or disseminating images of a woman engaging in a private act without her consent.
  • It is also an offense to watch a woman engaging in a private act without her consent, and this includes capturing or disseminating images.
  • The punishment for voyeurism may include imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both.

Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishath v. State of Kerala (2011):

  • This case emphasized the need to address modern forms of voyeurism, such as using mobile phones to capture images or record videos without consent. The court upheld that such actions could constitute an offense under Section 354C.

Section 354D – Stalking:

  • Section 354D addresses the offense of stalking. Stalking includes following a woman, contacting her to foster personal interaction, or monitoring her electronically, which causes her fear or distress.
  • Stalking can be physical or through electronic means such as phone calls, messages, emails, or social media.
  • The punishment for stalking may include imprisonment for up to three years for the first offense, and for subsequent offenses, the punishment may be more severe.

These sections were introduced to provide legal protection to women against various forms of harassment, stalking, and invasion of privacy. They aim to safeguard the dignity and safety of women and hold offenders accountable for their actions. The penalties may vary depending on the severity of the offense and whether it is a first-time or repeat offense. It’s important to consult with legal experts and refer to the most current legal resources for precise information on these sections and their interpretations.

Rajesh Kumar v. State (2013):

  • This case highlighted the issue of stalking and the importance of Section 354D. The court ruled that repeated and unwelcome advances, as well as monitoring the victim through phone calls and messages, can constitute stalking under this section.

Sheila Barse v. Union of India (2015):

  • In this case, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to ensure that complaints of stalking under Section 354D are treated seriously and investigated promptly. The court emphasized the need to protect the safety and dignity of women.

About The Author

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top