Mukul Sir Sem II Notes

Offences related to
1. Body
2. Marriage
3. Sexual Offences

Chapter 16 – Human Body

Difference between Chapter 16 and Chapter 17

Offences against property start with lesser offences and then it graduates to more
serious offences. For instance, it begins with theft proceeds to extortion and so on.
Whereas in the case of offences against human body, the chapter begins with the
most serious offence against the human body i.e. murder. This raises a question as
to why did Macaulay adopt this approach towards making the chapters?

s. 349 – Force
Not included as an offence as a defining section. Force is an exercise of one’s energy
on another human being.
The force can be exerted directly or indirectly.

s. 350 – Criminal Force

intentionally
without the person’s consent
with the intention to commit the offence
knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury,
fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used

Intentionally negates the unintentional, negligent and accidental applications of

force.
The person needs to intend the harm or have the knowledge that he shall cause
injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom it is used.

(Read illustrations)

s. 351 – Assault
It is only a threat to use violence which is made using the medium of gestures.
Assault is a threat indicating an intention to use criminal force.
It is the present ability in the assailant to effectuate his threat into reality. The action
should be such that in the surrounding circumstances there exist certain elements of
ability to bring about the use of criminal force.

The use of word ‘any person’ – the target of the gesture- his understanding should
be that of a reasonable man or of the man’s level and skill.

Legal requirements of Assault

Accused intend to instill fear in the mind of the victim and he does act in accordance
to the section. The moment the accused makes the threat with the intention to
threat the victim the offence is complete.

Before Contact  Assault

Contact  Criminal Force

Assault is an attempt to cause corporal hurt.

s. 319 – Hurt

1. Bodily Pain

Any mental pain will not qualify for the offence.

R v Renal
Calls to woman  no conversation, heavy breathing on one side - court held that
body is not confined to flesh, skin and muscles but all the other organs residing
within.

2. Disease

Not every illness is covered under disease. Deliberately infecting someone with a
disease – most of the cases pertaining to STDs. Some cases it has been held that
the husband is liable while in some cases it has been held not liable.

3. Infirmity

Temporary instability in any organ of the body where the organ cannot perform its
normal function.

Anis Baig
The accused mixed love portion in the food meant for his girlfriend. The accused
was charged for causing hurt.

Jashnmanal v Brahmanand
Infirmity means when any organ of the body stops working temporarily. In this case,
the brain stopped working temporarily when nervous shock was caused.

S. 321 – Voluntarily causing hurt

i. He should have intentionally done something
ii. If intention is not there, knowledge should be there
iii. and thereby causes hurt.

Hence, if there is no harm the intention and knowledge are not relevant.

S. 320 – Grievous Hurt

The only hurt given in eight clauses given here are grievous hurt, or else it cannot
be considered under this section.
Firstly – emasculation – depriving a male of his masculine vigour- practice prevalent
in rural places of females on slightest of pretext to squeeze the testicles of the man.
To address this issue, this is an offence against men sexuality.

Secondly – Permanent damage to the eye

Thirdly – Permanent damage to ear
Fourthly – Privation of member or joint
Fifthly – Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint
(twisting the muscles or powers of the body that cause fracture in the joints and
limbs).
Sixthly – Permanent disfiguration of head or face

Fracture can happen not because of breaking of bones but because of cuts. Can cut
on bone come under this section? It is decided by court that such cuts on bones
cannot be taken to be coming under this section.
Ruptures, fissures or cuts on the bones are mere abrasions, not fractures. The
cracks on the bones should be covering the outer surface, to inner surface. So
hairline fractures are not covered under this.

Horilal v State of UP
If there are grievous injuries, the effec0t of those injuries there is cut on your flesh
can leave a mark on your scalp chamber. But that is limited to your head part. For
other parts, such cut marks would not be covered under this section.

What about cut injuries which are grievous caused by sharp objects that do not fall
under any of these above categories e.g. stab injuries?
Hence, these all fall under the category of eighthly that cause pain for twenty days.
Eighthly
1. Any hurt that endangers life
2. Severe body pain for twenty days  no logic
3. Disability to follow his ordinary pursuits

The second ingredient has become a money making provision as the medical
certificates for pain can be easily acquired for 20 days. Similarly, the third ingredient
can also be used in that manner.

How is pain ascertained? Is it from a reasonable point of view or from the tolerance
power of the victim?

Is doctor the right person to ascertain whether the severe body pain existed for 20
days?
Because it is highly dependent on the medical certificate. It is a test dependent on
the medical sciences observation, not on the reasonable man’s test or the subjective
test.

Disability to follow his ordinary pursuits

This is a very ambiguous and uncertain terminology which depends on what kind of
profession he is in for e.g. if he is dealing with sales work and if he is injured in his
leg he will not be able to follow his ordinary pursuits, similarly if someone is injured
in the left hand and he is right handed, it needs to be looked at carefully.
Hence, the third part of the eighthly clause is subjected to a lot of uncertainty.

1. Nature and severity of the injury

2. Probability of disability
3. Mere hospitalization is not sufficient to ascertain third clause
4. Taking leave for 20 days is also not sufficient
5. The court will look into each aspect of his inability

Dangerous injuries and Endangering injuries

Such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – s. 299

Is sufficient in the ordinary course of things to cause death - s. 300 (thirdly)

Injuring causing haemhorage, Injuries to vital organs or injuries which lead to shock
to the organs = those types of injuries are generally called dangerous injuries.

The court needs to ask itself,

Whether the inflicted injury falls under the category of dangerous injury?
More importantly, whether the dangerous injury is in fact puts the life of victim in
some danger?

If the second question is answered in negative, then eighthly cannot be applied.

When will dangerous injuries be called endangering injuries?

1. when the threat to life is imminent
2. injuries are extensive
3. injuries implicate vital organs
4. without medical intervention, person’s life could not be saved.

Situation 1 – simple injuries inflicted on vital organs  fall under clause 8

Situation 2 – dangerous injuries on non vital parts  fall under clause 8 but not
under all cases (only in situations when it becomes life endangering)

Marcelino Fernandes

Injury on neck – changes on facts

Assault was on the vital part of body and without any weapon – simple hurt on vital
part. Injury as a result was not a direct injury. He fell down and which lead to death.
There was a break in causation as he fell on his own. There was some uncertainty
was brought in favour of accused as the prosecution has to prove beyond any doubt.

Muhammed Rafi v Emperor

Injury on neck
Pen knife on neck – but died to due to septic causes because of bad clothing
Chances of infection of septic, tissue(meningitis, pneumonia, etc)
Another case where a stab wound was given in the forearm – it is not a vital part
however it hit the artillery and there was excessive loss of blood with which the
person died – organ involved is non vital but hemorrhage

Rambaran Mahton

Dina v State (1996)

There is a very thin line between injuries must be such as are likely to cause death
and injuries as endangering life. And when there is a thin line, it is very difficult to
differentiate or ascertain whether the case should fall under culpable homicide or
grievously causing injuries.

Culpable Homicide and Murder (s. 299 and s. 300)

In UK, culpable homicide is called manslaughter which is further divided into
voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. No such distinction exists in India.

Punishment for
Highest degree = S. 302
Middle Degree = S. 304 (i)
Lowest degree = S. 304 (ii)  knowledge without intention

In UK, there is discretionary punishment for manslaughter.

In UK, there is a tariff (minimum time for which he will be in prison) although the
mandatory punishment is life imprisonment. He is released on a license on an
assurance that he is no longer a danger to the society.

They have defined murder talking about two things

1. actus reus: Unlawfully causing death of an individual is called murder
2. mens rea: The intention to cause death and grievous body harm.

1. Causes death
2. Intention of causing such bodily injury is likely to cause death
3. Knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death=
4. Commits the offence of culpable homicide

All murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not
murders.

1. Justified
a. All persons who causes the death of another are not necessarily guilty
of culpable homicide. There maybe intention to kill yet homicide must
be justified and hence it is not culpable homicide.
 b. e.g. two conjoint twins where you have to save one of them and hence
have to kill the other. Doctor performing a very critical operation.
c. (exoneration from the entire offence)

2. Causing of death by doing an act/ omission

a. But for test is sufficient for establishing the liability in some cases.
b. While factual connection needs to be established and may be
established, legal causation needs to be satisfied. The accused may not
be the sole cause of death. Since he might not be the sole cause of the
death, he is liable when the prosecution establishes that accused
actions were operating and substantial cause of death (much more
than minimal cause).

s. 299

1. whoever causes death

2. causes death by doing an act
3. intention of causing death

s. 300
1. if the act by which death is caused
a. Slitting the throat
b. Shooting with gun

Culpable Homicide types

1. Culpable homicide is murder if it comes under any of the four options
discussed in s. 300
2. Culpable homicide is not murder when it comes under the five exceptions
provided under murder in s. 300.
3. Culpable homicide simplicitor:

For 299(1),

299(a) – intention to cause death

299 (b) – bodily injury likely to cause death
299 © - Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death

Proposal
300(i) causa causans
299(a) causa sine qua non

If the intention is to guilt then the case goes to 299(a). There is no concrete
distinction between both of them.

Delay in causing death

Indistinct concurrent cause and causal connection
Instances
1. Death after operation
 2. victim refuses to undergo the treatment
3. victim fails to follow precautions due to which he dies

The cause of a cause principle cannot be brought under culpable homicide. It needs
to be most proximate or sufficiently proximate to come under s. 299.

If the death is the sole cause of the injury, then it cannot come under s. 299.

In UK, an abolished rule of 1 year and 1 day, a person dies, manslaughter cannot be
charged. If 3 years threshold is surpassed now, the permission of the attorney
general needs to be taken.

Post hoc – after this

propter hoc – because of this

Causing of death of a child when the umbical cord is connected is not homicide.
According to s. 312, law is considering fetus as an important human being and it
accords seven years punishment.

Someone on life support system in a vegetative state or coma – still not decided

Mens rea

1. Minimum mental element – Knowledge of the act of likely to cause death

2. More than knowledge  Intention
a. Intention to cause death
b. Intention to cause bodily injury
3. Culpable Negligence (not covered under s. 299)  304 (a)

Illustrations (not covered under 299)

1. Emperor v Foxs (1880)
2. Pankha kuli Case – British master taking rest – indian, called kuli sitting
outside room – rope in his hand – there was a huge fan clock on the ceiling
and he would pull the rope to switch the fan – one afternoon while doing this
he falls asleep – his master wakes up to find him asleep – to reprimand him
he kicks him once in his stomach – falls down, vomits blood and dies – he
was having enlarged ??? – his organ was ruptured and he died.
a. They did not have the knowledge that their act is sufficient to cause
death.
3. Guru Bulu Case – There was an old woman in a hot summer – nose rings in
nostrils – thief steals and the nose tears – due to shock and exhaustion – she
faints, bleeds from nose and dies.
a. They did not have the knowledge that their act is sufficient to cause
death.
1. What knowledge is?
2. When a person is supposed to be having that knowledge?
3. What this knowledge is about?

1. Knowledge is conscious awareness.

a. It is more than belief.
i. It relates to future contingency.
ii. It is based on reason inference of the situation.
b. Actual knowledge (S. 300 secondly)
i. Difference between s. 299 and s. 300 – Special knowledge of
which he is taking advantage is aggravated as a more serious
offence in s. 300 treated as murder as opposed to s. 299
(culpable homicide).
ii. The prosecution needs to prove that the accused knew the
special circumstances of the victim and exploited it.
2. A knowledge i.e. the act will be such that knowledge can be inferred/
knowledge was probable (Clause c of 299)
a. It is a posteriori (dependent on the outcome).
b. Three broad principles: The presence of knowledge is a question of
fact.
i. The facts in the mind of the accused were sufficient and
lead it to infer that his act was likely to cause death.
Tulsha case- A lady in the village in order to elope with her
lover while running away from her house, she mixes dhatura
seeds to the food meant for parents because she wanted to run
away with her lover.
ii. Ganesh Doley – A snakecharmer who is exhibiting his skills in
public. He is using venomous snake (not the ones whose teeth
are taken off) and while demonstrating them and while doing
this, he puts the snake to the head of one of the members of
the public and while shirking, the snake bit the person and it
killed the person.
iii. Bunnae Faatimaa – A snakecharmer convinces the public that
he has a cure for snake bite. Three people offer themselves to
be bitten and they die in the process.
1. In the last two cases, there needs to be a distinction
between belief of a person and the facts. The facts are
that there is a likely chance of causing death. Even in the
first case, it was a village setting where she understood
the value of dhatura sufficient to cause death.
2. The first principle conveys properly that the facts that are
supposed to be there in the mind and the beliefs of the
person.

c. The second principle: Not only the knowledge which is present in

the accused but judging from the effect, the knowledge ought to have
been present in the accused. (the knowledge ought to have should in
context of the outcome)
 i. Bcoolum Hijra – Here is a Hijra who performs emasculation
operation on an organ with a blade resulting in his death.
ii. Sukaro Kaviraj – There is a jhola chaap doctor (quack) who
performs an operation with an ordinary kitchen knife for internal
piles.
iii. Jamalludin – These are three persons, one guru and two
chelas, who are extortionists, beat up a 16 year old girl who is
said to have evil spirit with iron rods, sticks to drive the spirit
away. She got multiple internal injuries and then she died.
1. In all these cases, there should have been
knowledge on the part of all these individuals.

3. The third principle: Knowledge is to be presumed from the cruelty. Cruelty

in the sense if greater violence is used. It is again a mechanism where the
inference is drawn from the outcome.
a. Ketabdi Mandal (1879 Calcutta) – A husband kicks his wife with
his bare foot on the back of his nine year old wife. A single kick causes
internal rupture of the abdomens and the wife dies. If you try to read
intention, can we say did he have the intention to kill his wife? There
was no repeated assault, there was no weapon so intention cannot be
there. But knowledge that the act is likely to cause death?
i. The court said to kick a girl of tender age with such force as to
cause rupture is of such character that no reasonable man could
be ignorant of the likelihood of the resulting death.
ii. If an act is already a criminal act, say kicking or hitting, it is an
inherently criminal act whereas snake charmers and surgical
doctors are related to the professions in some manner, in the
former cases, mens rea is taken.
iii. Stanley Yeo: 299 and 300 is the weakest link in the Indian Penal
Code.
iv. Actual knowledge under 300(2) cannot be presumed whereas
presumptive knowledge can be presumed.
1. He must be consciously aware of certain harmful
components. It is done by putting a reasonable man in
stature of an accused person (reasonable man similarly
situated).
What this knowledge is about?
This knowledge is about what is likely to cause death. Likely means the same lines
as probably. 50% or more.
300 thirdly talks about the likely scenario.
300 fourthly talks about the practical certainty.

The difference between murder and culpable homicide is the culpability and
probability.

Clause B of 299 – Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death

First part  subjective inquiry  Whether the injury was in his contemplation
As is likely to cause death  second one is objective test 
The person is intentionally inflicting the injury, it is different from intention to cause
death.
It is not required that the person who inflicts the injury is likely to cause death.
Knowledge required to prove injury need not be proved. It needs to be proved/
established that whatever injury he has inflicted, he had contemplated to cause that
very injury.

His intention to cause death or the knowledge of death need not be established.

In the second part, the objective test, the doctors tell that it is not only likely but
also sufficient to cause death.
Culpable homicide simplicitor  s. 304 (1)  does not attract 300  likely not
sufficient in ordinary course

If a person is inflicting an injury that is likely / sufficient to cause death 

somewhere it causes the determination of a person to cause death but he is not fully
decided or prepared to cause death in the former cases. (Diff. between 300 and
304(1) )

Rajinder v State
To cause injury with that very victim – intention to inflict gun wound in the upper
thigh – whether it is likely to cause death or not needs to be proven objectively – it
is not sufficient to cause death if it is hit on the thigh – additionally he first ensured
that the identity of the victim is ensured.

In the absence of any motive, intention to cause death is very difficult to prove. If
the body part is not vital, if the weapon is not fatal or so on, then it is very difficult
to prove.

1. A strong presumption of intention to kill maybe rebutted by some other

circumstances:
a. immediate motive,
b. nature of instruments of attack,
c. time and place,
d. position and condition of the victims,
e. accused did not persist in attack,
f. whether the victim was grappling with the accused
i. Because of grave and sudden provocation, it might be an
accidental stab and hence, malice or forethought in such cases
are missing.

Venkalu Case (2,4,10)

The two accused locked the victim in the hurt bolted outside and set it on fire- victim
dead with burn injuries
Defence – the act is not so proximately connected to set up case of murder 300
(firstly). In light of other additional evidence, one of the servants who came to
rescue he was beaten up – he called villagers and when they tried to put water
these two put dust in their eyes
This proves intention to kill the person.

Clause thirdly of sec. 300 – intention to inflict bodily injury to be

established by prosecution
And comparing with firstly of s. 300 – intention to kill
And s. 299 – injury likely to cause death

Virsa Singh Case

For the first time, court reached a different understanding of clause thirdly of s.300.
It came to be interpreted as courts are not supposed to look at intention to inflict an
injury that is sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.

Bifurcate into two parts

1. Intention to cause bodily injury (subjectively established)
2. Injury which was intended to be inflicted sufficient in ordinary course to cause
death (objectively established)

Courts should look at intention whether it was to inflict bodily injury or not. Whether
that injury is sufficient to cause death or not, whether this contemplation exists in
the brain of the accused or not is not relevant, it needs to be looked at objectively
from medical standards.

To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it
can bring a case under
Section 300 “thirdly”;
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective
investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily
injury, that is
to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury
was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further
and,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the
three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to
do with the intention of the offender.

The difference between secondly and fourthly is that although both are objective in
nature, fourthly has added the word inferential in it and hence the doctor adduces
the evidence and provides his conclusions based on that.
Nature of injury is a detailed list of injuries and the extent of injuries. E.g. Post
mortem reports, description of injuries and the last paragraph deals with inference
whether in medical science it is sufficient in ordinary course to cause death or not.

When it becomes difficult for the court to establish the intention to cause death,
they refer to thirdly of s. 300 since the single blows are very difficult to prove
intention to cause death. E.g. shoot someone point black is a clear cut case of
intention to cause death.
Hence, the court should not jump to firstly in the absence of substantial evidence.

State of AP v Rayavarapu Punnayya

The assault was not caused on vital organs however death was the consequence
despite being beaten on the leg. The broken pieces of the bones had pierced into
the artilleries. The victim died from shock and haemhorage due to the cumulative
effect of the fractures and the injuries – sufficient in the ordinary course to cause
death.

Rajvant

Officer tied up – blocking nostrils - chloroform given - Died due to Asphyxiation

Liberal interpretation of thirdly of s. 300 – injury to be interpreted in the light of s.44

– very well covered under injury.
Blocking someone’s nostrils is sufficient in ordinary course of things to cause death.

1. they intentionally blocked his nostrils (subjective)

2. It is sufficient to cause death (objective by doctor standards)

Clause fourthly of s. 300 (recklessness)

If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.

Reasonable man or Subjective standards?

What if the person is under such stress or pressing circumstances or lack of wisdom
that no reasonable thought enters his brain while committing the act?

Till the first part, they are looking at it from a reasonable man perspective.
Even in the case they say that the knowledge must be presumed however they later
say that the person needs to be taken into consideration in its particular
circumstances.
What if the person does not adhere to reasonable person?

That minimum threshold first needs to be established. First part is independent of

the second part and in normal cases, the first part is applicable and the minimum
threshold needs to be established first. It relies on reasonable man standards.
Excuse here is different from chapter 4 of IPC (they are other than what is covered
there).

Reasonable man is very vague in its approach since it is difficult to ascertain

sensitivity, extreme views, etc. The value of certainty is lost in reasonable man’s
point of view.
Exceptions

1. Grave and Sudden provocation

a. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the
power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of
the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by mistake or accident.
b. It needs to be grave and sudden at the same time. There maybe
provocations that are grave but not sudden or maybe sudden but not grave.
i. Calcutta and Patna HC: Anyone under guardianship or care under
incestual relationship will be considered a grave provocation and
Madras HC differs stating that is not a grave provocation.
ii. This provocation is heavily tilted towards the male gender since it
almost assumes that female is the property of the male.
KM Nanavati Case

When she confesses to be in an affair to her husband, should it be considered grave and sudden provocation
(even when there was no conflict or problem in the relationship)?
It was definitely not a sudden provocation. If he saw both of them in a compromising position then it might have
been sudden provocation.
In a cordial relationship and in an extramarital affair set up in 1960s, is it a grave provocation? It might be.
When does sudden provocation come into play? He receives the pistol by signing to the register and he goes to
the deceased house.
There was already preparation to kill and before the deceased made such comments, he would have still not
been absolved of the preparation for the crime.
In my opinion, exception 1 is not allowed in this case. It falls squarely in 302 section.

R v Ahluwalia (UK Case)

Slow burning syndrome – it may be a case that a person is slowly experiencing the pain or grave provocation
and one day he gives up.

Balku, Muthu
Madhavan v State of Kerala

Grave and sudden provocation is also location based and situation based.

4. Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without

premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation
or commits the first assault.
Ghapoo Yadav
Para 10 (g) and (h)  diff between exception 1 and 4
A sudden fight implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. It is not a
case for unilateral provocation.
It is difficult to apportion… (read entire para 10)

These exceptions are provided because the malice aforethought is absent in such
cases. They are drafted just to rule out premeditation.

Lachmi Koeri
This section only applied when the right conferred by s. 99 to 105 are exceeded but
is not violated extensively (exceedingly).
In this case, the moment there exists intention there no longer exists good faith and
hence, at that point the right vanishes.

Prerequisites
1. There must be a right to private defence
2. It must have been exceeded.

Exception 3
For the advancement of public justice
He, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his
duty

Dakhi Singh
The standard is subjective test. The person who was in that situation how he
calculated the things, his mental test becomes the standard.
It needs to be ascertained by the person who was provoked might give rise to some
provocation.

Exception 5
1. 18 plus
2. suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent
3. free and voluntary
4. free of fear

Sexual Offences
Penetrative sexual offences
Non Penetrative sexual offences

Two watershed incidents in legal development of sexual offences: Mathura and

Delhi.
In law, the offences need to be looked at a very different light. The morality and
social norms needs to be kept aside. It needs to be looked at constitutional morality.

Any crime that results in some harm: what harms are caused when sexual offences
take place?
1. bodily autonomy
2. right to privacy
3. right to life and dignity
These are the constitutional morality on the basis of which we look at the law.

s. 354 – Outraging the modesty

 1. Modesty is not defined in the IPC
2. The accused can plead he did not know his act would outrage the modesty of
the woman
3. Is it a gender neutral offence?

Non consensual non penetrative sexual offences – comes under this section
It is a bit difficult to ascertain criminal liability in such cases where there is no
penetration.

Canada
Intentional contact of non penetrative nature
To create a threat of sexual violence (Verma Committee)

The Committee recommended that non-penetrative forms of sexual contact should be

regarded as sexual assault. The offence of sexual assault should be defined so as to include
all forms of non-consensual non-penetrative touching of a sexual nature. The sexual nature
of an act should be determined on the basis of the circumstances.

State of Punjab v Major Singh

Para 11, 15, 16
In Soko v Emperor, it is given that modesty of a woman is linked to the sense of
shame.
So if someone does not have a sense of shame, the society does not bother about
that case.

The sexual offences should be treated to sexual integrity, bodily privacy and other
such things instead of looking at modesty stand point.

Para 15 and 16
A combined reading gives us that court has defined modesty as something not what
a woman feels but what a woman has by virtue of being a woman.
The sense of shame is taking out of the person possessing it and taking it to the
gender.

Rupan Deol Bajaj v KPS Gill

Para 20
as