Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 354, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 74 Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty Text carried over almost unchanged 88%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
- Bombay Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act s. 3 Restrictions on publication of reports of judicial proceedings
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Gujarat Judicial Proceedings (Regulation Reports) Act s. 3
- Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act s. 7
- witness protection Act s. 2
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-4.pdf 2021-03-18 (not same-date order-5 ROP). Khanwilkar/Bhat, Crl A 329/2021. In a s.354 IPC (outraging modesty) / sexual-offence bail matter, courts must not impose stereotyped or humiliating conditions (the impugned 'rakhi-tying' condition is set aside). Guidelines on gender-sensitive bail conditions, no contact with the survivor, and judicial stereotyping. Map IPC 354 and successor BNS 74.
On this section: In a s.354 / sexual-offence bail matter, stereotyped or humiliating conditions (rakhi-tying, contact with the survivor) are unconstitutional.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer vs Mahendra @ Golu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The rubbing of genitals on a victim's body with the clear intent to commit sexual intercourse, when the accused has taken deliberate overt steps to isolate the victim, undress both himself and the victim, and perform acts reasonably proximate to penetration, constitutes an 'attempt' to commit rape under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, not mere 'preparation' or indecent assault under Section 354 IPC. The dividing line between preparation and attempt is determined by whether the accused has gone beyond the stage of preparation and commenced direct movement towards commission of the offence with the necessary intent, even if the attempt is interrupted before actual penetration.
On this section: Provision for indecent assault or outraging the modesty of a woman. The High Court had convicted the respondent under this section, which the Supreme Court found to be an incorrect application of law.
-
Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State of Goa Home Department Home Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227-228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to be applied is whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, not whether ground for conviction has been made out. Even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. The submissions made by the accused on merits and probable defence are not required to be considered at this stage. The decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab regarding vitiation of trial when complainant and investigating officer are the same applies prospectively only, as held in Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and does not apply to cases where criminal prosecution was initiated prior to the Mohan Lal decision.
On this section: Outraging modesty of a woman - one of the offences charged against the appellant
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Sexual harassment; cited in original sexual harassment case
-
State of M. P vs Bablu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving assault or criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of women, sentencing must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and calibrated to achieve the dual objectives of deterrence and proportionality. The mere fact that an accused is a first-time offender or has undergone prolonged legal proceedings does not justify reduction of a proportionate sentence to merely time already served, as such leniency would undermine public confidence in the justice system and create incentive for repetition of such crimes. Courts must balance individual circumstances with the paramount duty to protect society and reflect societal abhorrence of crimes against women.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both; Court emphasized no minimum sentence prescribed under this section but sentence must be proportionate to gravity of offense
-
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The State has a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the freedom of choice in marriage and protection from sexual violence. When the State fails to prevent grave violations of these fundamental rights such as gang rape, the State is duty bound to provide substantial monetary compensation to the victim for rehabilitation and must implement systemic reforms including police vigilance, mandatory victim protection procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code, and long-term victim rehabilitation. Panchayats and village councils have no legal authority to order, authorize, or participate in violence or sexual assault, and such acts constitute unlawful assemblies and barbaric crimes deserving harsh punishment. The investigating agency must comply with mandatory procedural requirements including recording rape FIRs and victim statements exclusively by women police officers, invoking all applicable criminal sections, obtaining and certifying all evidence properly, and investigating larger conspiracies if any.
On this section: Court held these sections should have been considered by investigating agency for the conduct of panchayat members and others; emphasized procedural safeguards for victims under amended CrPC
-
Prashant Bharti vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When material evidence of sterling and impeccable quality - consisting of documentary records (judgment and decree of divorce, marriage certificate) and scientifically-generated electronic evidence (call detail records) - conclusively establishes that the factual basis of criminal accusations is false and that the allegations cannot be substantiated in trial, the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings at the stage of charge framing or trial, as proceeding further would constitute abuse of court process and denial of justice to the innocent accused, even though the prosecution has filed a chargesheet based on complainant's statement.
On this section: Outraging modesty of woman - alleged touching of breasts and misbehaviour, proven false through mobile phone evidence establishing complainant and accused were not at same location
-
Manisha Tyagi vs Deepak Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Division Bench of the High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Single Judge regarding the non-establishment of cruelty and grant a decree of divorce when the appeal before it was filed by the wife challenging judicial separation, not by the husband seeking divorce. The reversal must be based on compelling necessity or glaring errors resulting in miscarriage of justice. Where both parties are at fault and no party has appealed for divorce, judicial separation is the appropriate remedy, and either party may seek divorce after the statutory one-year period.
On this section: Outraging modesty; wife filed FIR against father-in-law under this section
-
State of U. P vs Sheo Lal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The absence of moonlight or artificial light in the FIR does not per se preclude reliable identification of assailants when: (1) the assailants are closely related and well-known to the witnesses; (2) there is proximity and confrontation between parties; (3) some ambient light is available (stars, glow from surroundings); (4) the location is roofless or open; and (5) the logical principle applies that light sufficient for assailants to identify and target victims is equally sufficient for victims to identify assailants. In such circumstances, eyewitness evidence of identification, particularly from injured witnesses, must be given substantial weight. The non-establishment of motive alone is not sufficient to discard a prosecution case supported by credible eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Courts must apply careful scrutiny to evidence and must not reject testimony merely because certain technical details were not recorded in procedural documents.
On this section: Outraging modesty of a woman - Surendra was convicted under this section for the alleged attempted molestation of Sharmi
-
State of H. P vs Prem Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of sexual assault, the delay in lodging an FIR cannot be treated as equivalent to delay in other categories of offences. Courts must recognize that tradition-bound societies, particularly in rural areas of India, have legitimate social, cultural, and psychological factors that may cause victims and their families to delay reporting sexual assault to police. To automatically or summarily reject a prosecution case solely on the ground of FIR delay would be improper and unsafe in such societal contexts. However, the basic ingredients of each offence, particularly the specific elements required for rape under Section 375 IPC, must still be independently and clearly proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Defines outraging the modesty of a woman; Court found this offence established beyond reasonable doubt
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Outraging modesty; charged but acquitted
-
Amarjeet Singh Kapoor vs The State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases where an accused is willing to cooperate with investigation, custodial interrogation is not automatically required merely because the offences are serious. Courts must assess whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for the investigation or whether the investigative objectives can be achieved through the accused's voluntary cooperation, conditional bail, and periodic visits to the Police Station. Anticipatory bail can be granted with conditions ensuring cooperation and availability, balancing the investigative powers of the State with the personal liberty of the accused during the investigation phase.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty - offence for which petitioner was accused
-
Prem Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A complete and unequivocal chain of circumstantial evidence, even without eyewitness testimony, is sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of an accused person in a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be such that they lead to no other reasonable inference except the guilt of the accused, and minor contradictions in witness testimony on peripheral matters do not vitiate the credibility of witnesses on core facts if they are consistent on the essential aspects of the case. Recovery of the murder weapon and stolen property at the instance of the accused following a disclosure statement, coupled with medical and forensic evidence and last-seen evidence, forms a clinching chain of circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Outraging modesty of a woman - Applied to the sexual assault element of the case. The Court found that the appellant attempted to outrage the modesty of the victim through sexual intercourse before murdering her.
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sushant Suresh Kotkar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant and the victim themselves, turn hostile and do not support the prosecution case in their testimony, and no other credible evidence is brought on record to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations without supporting evidence from credible witnesses are insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Applied to the allegation that the accused hugged the informant with criminal force
-
Suchet Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because it follows a civil or criminal proceeding. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. The determination of whether an FIR is a counterblast often involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court. When allegations in an FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations, and criminal proceedings cannot be terminated at the initial stage by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Offence of outraging modesty of a woman; cited as one of the offences in the impugned FIR
-
State of Maharashtra Etc vs Pravin Mahadeo Gadekar Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dying declaration, when recorded by an Executive Magistrate with proper medical certification confirming the declarant's consciousness and mental fitness, and when supported by the testimony of the medical officer who remained present throughout the recording, is absolutely reliable and trustworthy as evidence. Minor inconsistencies or exaggerations in peripheral facts mentioned in other dying declarations or oral statements do not render the primary dying declaration unreliable if the core facts remain consistent. The Court must place reliance on such a properly certified dying declaration when it stands corroborated on material aspects by other evidence.
On this section: Charge and conviction for outraging of modesty - assault with intent to outrage modesty
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' ) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/State against the Judgment dated 11.02.2020, whereby the learned ASJ-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, has acquitted the Respondent, Narender Singh for the offence under Section 354/354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' ) and Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') , in FIR No. 311/2014 registered at Police Station Nangloi. …
Questions about Section 354
What have the courts held on Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code?
Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (18 Mar 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: In a s.354 / sexual-offence bail matter, stereotyped or humiliating conditions (rakhi-tying, contact with the survivor) are unconstitutional. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 354, section 354 IPC, section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 354 in bns and ipc 354a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (18 Mar 2021).
What should I read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called outraging modesty, and cited as IPC 354, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.