Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Pramod Kumar Rastogi VS Government Of Nct Of Delhi...
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1956 : The Supreme Court held that an assault by a husband on his wife does not automatically attract Section 354 IPC. The court emphasized that for a charge under Section 354 IPC to be valid, the complaint must specifically allege ''''assault or criminal force used against the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty.'''' In this case, even though the wife alleged that her husband hit her on the nose and kicked her, the complaint did not contain any allegation of intent to outrage her modesty. Therefore, the charge under Section 354 IPC was set aside. This establishes that the mere act of assault by a husband on his wife is not sufficient; there must be a specific intent to outrage her modesty, which must be clearly pleaded in the complaint.Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS Major Singh...
1966 0 Supreme(SC) 145 : The court held that the mere fact that a husband assaulted his wife does not automatically attract Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that Section 354 requires an intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, and the test is not based solely on the relationship between the parties. The judgment notes that the law does not automatically exclude a husband from being liable under Section 354, but the key issue is whether the act was such as to outrage the modesty of the woman according to common notions of mankind. The court also referenced the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, which explicitly provides that a girl under 16 cannot consent, but clarified that Section 354 of the IPC is not limited to sexual offences and requires a subjective element of intent to outrage modesty. The court rejected the idea that the woman''''s individual reaction or sensitivity should be the sole test, and instead held that the act must be clearly suggestive of sex according to common notions. Therefore, while a husband''''s assault on his wife may fall under Section 354 if the act meets the criteria, it does not do so automatically.Checking relevance for State of Madhya Pradesh VS Bablu...
Checking relevance for ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS SATISH...
Checking relevance for Premiya @ Prem Prakash VS State of Rajasthan...
Checking relevance for Ramkripal S/o Shyamlal Charmakar VS State Of M. P. ...
Checking relevance for MOIZ AHMED S/O. ABDUL RAZZAK AND ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR...
Checking relevance for Ravindra S/o Laxman Narete vs State of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for M. A. Vaheed VS K. K. Lathika...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 932 : The court held that for an offence under Section 354 IPC to be made out, it is not sufficient that an assault or use of criminal force occurred; the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused assaulted or used criminal force with the intention to outrage the woman''''s modesty, or with knowledge that it was likely to outrage her modesty. The court emphasized that the essence of the offence lies in the culpable intention of the accused, not merely the act itself. This principle applies regardless of the relationship between the accused and the victim, meaning that even in cases involving a husband and wife, the mere act of assault does not automatically attract Section 354 IPC unless the specific intent to outrage modesty is established. The court further noted that the reaction of the victim is not the sole criterion, and the test is whether a reasonable person would consider the act to be intended to or likely to outrage modesty, taking into account the woman''''s station, way of life, and known notions of modesty.Checking relevance for XXXXXX VS STATE OF KERALA...
Checking relevance for Rinku @ Prempal VS State of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Jaswinder Singh VS State of Himachal Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Pema Tshering Bhutia VS State of Sikkim...
Checking relevance for Tarkeshwar Sahu VS State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)...
Checking relevance for Aman Kumar VS State Of Haryana...
Checking relevance for Vidyadharan VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Saibanna VS State of Karnataka...
Checking relevance for STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS BABULAL...
Checking relevance for Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat VS State Of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai VS State of Gujarat...
2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 686 : A husband assaulting his wife will not automatically attract Section 354 IPC. The key factor is whether the assault was committed with the intent to outrage her modesty or with knowledge that it would likely outrage her modesty. The document clarifies that acts of affection or normal expressions of love between spouses, even in public, may not amount to an outrage of modesty. However, if the act is cruel, unkind, or of a perverted nature (e.g., pulling hair in public, or acts not acceptable to the wife or society), it may constitute an offence under Section 354. The context, nature, and intent behind the act are crucial in determining liability.Checking relevance for AMIT @ LALU VS STATE...
Checking relevance for T. Manikadan VS State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)...
Checking relevance for SHUBHAM CHAWLA VS STATE...
Checking relevance for RAMA GOSWAMI VS LAKSHMI KANTA ROY...
2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 454 : Under Section 354 of the IPC, an act of assault by a husband on his wife does not automatically attract the provision. The essential ingredients of the offense must be established, including that the accused subjected the woman to assault or criminal force with the intention or knowledge that the woman''''s modesty would be outraged. The mere fact of marital relationship does not negate the possibility of an offense under Section 354 IPC, but the prosecution must prove the specific intent to outrage modesty. The court emphasized that the Trial Court must consider the essential ingredients of the offense, and the absence of such intent or proof of outrage of modesty would preclude conviction, even in cases involving marital violence.
