School of Law,

VIT,Chennai
BALLB 6th semester
Women and Law
Women and Crime

Date:05-02-2024
Dowry death
Section 304B. Of IPC
1[304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as
in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]
Essentials of dowry death

● Death must be caused by burns, bodily injury, or other circumstances.

● Death must occur within seven years of marriage.

● It must be disclosed that soon before her marriage, she was exposed to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any other relative.

● The cruelty or harassment of her should be connected to the demand for dowry.
Section 498A Cruelty
This provision defines cruelty as "whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to
What is Section 113B of the Evidence Act?
This provision deliberates presumption as to dowry death: "When the question is whether a person
has committed the dowry death of a woman & that soon before her death, the woman has been
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, the Court shall presume that such person (accused) had caused the dowry death." In
simple words, court presumes accused to have committed such crime, so accused has to prove
him innocent.
Dowry death is a cognizable (the police officer can arrest without a warrant and can investigate the
case without seeking permission from the court) and non-bailable offence. This offence is so
serious that it is considered a crime against society and in order to convey a strong message to
the offenders, it must be dealt with an iron hand, as the Supreme Court had already iterated.
Hansraj V. State of Punjab
In this case SC held that term normal circumstances apparently means not by natural death.
Rameshwer Das V. State of Punjab, 2008
In this case Sc held that, pregnant women, woman would not commit suicide unless
relationship with her husband comes to such a passed that she would be compelled to do so,
accused is liable to be convicted on the failure to prove his defense.
Section 326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid,
(326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.-- Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or
deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes
grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the
intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the
victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.

Essential

● Acid throwing/ attempting to throw/ administering the acid

● Grievous hurt caused
● Permanent or partial damage caused (maims, burns, disfigures or disablement)
● The offender had the knowledge and intent to carry out this act
So, these are some of the essentials of an acid attack.
● Until 2013, acid attacks were not even considered distinct offences under Indian law
and were covered under general laws such as punishment for grievous hurt and
attempt to murder. But with changing times and increasing cases of acid attacks, the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 was passed, which changed the situation in
India regarding acid attack laws. Sections 326A and 326B were added to the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. These are special provisions for acid attack cases.

● Although Sections 326A and 326B were enacted in 2013, there were some other
provisions available for victims to get justice too. Some provisions relating to
compensation for acid attack victims were also present in different statutes, but these
provisions were not specially drafted for the crime of acid attack. So, a need was felt
to draft provisions, especially for the acid attack cases, and Sections 326A and 326B
came into existence.
● Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC were inserted in 2013 on the recommendation of
the Justice Verma Committee.
Section 326B. Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.
Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to
any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or
partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous
hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of section 326A and this section, "acid" includes any
substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of
causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial
damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.]

A presumption regarding the acid attack is described under Section 114B of the Indian
Evidence Act. According to this Section, if anyone commits the offence of “acid attack,” then
as a general presumption, the court will presume that the offender was very well aware of
his actions while having enough knowledge and intent that such injury was likely to be
caused, as specified/ given under Section 326A of the IPC.
In the case of Gulab Sahiblal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1988), the victim’s
brother-in-law threw acid at the victim (a woman) due to her refusal to give money in order to
maintain the second wife of her husband. When the attack took place, the victim was holding
her two-and-a-half-year-old baby girl. The victim suffered acid burns on the left side of her
body, including her face, breasts, and hand, and her young daughter lost her sight. The
woman couldn’t recover from such burns and thus died due to the same. In this case, the
Court sentenced the brother-in-law to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, as well as
harsh imprisonment for a month, under Section 302 of the IPC, but the fine didn’t go to the
victim’s daughter under the concerned judgement.
As an acid attack is a crime against humanity, there are some provisions that provide for the payment
of compensation to the victim along with the fine recovered from the offender.

Based on Supreme Court directions, the Ministry of Home Affairs directed states-

● To ensure that the victims of acid attacks must receive compensation of at least Rs. 3 lakhs (Rs
1 lakh within 15 days and the rest Rs 2 lakhs within 2 months thereafter) from their respective
state government/ Union Territory.
● To make such provisions which are needed to provide treatment to acid attack victims for free in
any hospital whether it is public or private.
● To set aside 1-2 beds in private hospitals for the treatment of vulnerable acid attack victims who
might get discriminated against by hospitals owing to their background.
● To extend social integration programmes for the victims, which might be supported by NGOs to
meet victims’ rehabilitative needs.
TRAFFICKING OF A PERSON UNDER IPC
SECTION 370 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

1. Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, ( c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e)
receives, a person or persons, by using
I. threats,or
II. using force, or
III. any other form of coercion, or
IV. by abduction, or by practising fraud, or deception, or
V. by abuse of power, or
VI. by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent
of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or
received,commits the offence of trafficking

Explanations
1. The expression “exploitation” shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual
exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs.
2. The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking
2.Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
3.Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
4.Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and
shall also be liable to fine.
5.Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
 6.If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion,
then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
7.When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then,
such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall
mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to
fine.
Justice Verma Committee was set up after the after math of the tragic Delhi gang-rape incident.
There came Criminal Amendment Act, 2013, major changes were made in relation to trafficking
made to section 370 of IPC and the newly added section 370 A. Section 370 of IPC has been totally
reframed by the amendment Act. The concept of human trafficking has been added in the newly
amended Act. Amendment of 2013. - Vide the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 (Act 13 of
2013), the entire section has been changed so as to enlarge the scope of the offence and include
within its purview not just the mischief of slavery, but trafficking in general - of minors as also adults,
and also forced or bonded labour, prostitution, organ transplantation and to some extent
child-marriages.
Exploitation of a trafficked person 370A of IPC
1. Whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe that a minor has been trafficked, engages
such minor for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
2. Whoever, knowingly by or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked, engages
such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished With rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Habitual dealing in slaves 371 of IPC
Whoever habitually imports, exports, removes, buys, sells traffics or deals in slaves, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Section 312 of IPC : Causing miscarriage
Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall if such miscarriage be not caused in good
faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
Section 313 of IPC Causing miscarriage to women without her consent
Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman,
whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage. Section 314 of IPC
Whoever, with intent to cause the miscarriage of a woman with child, does any act which
causes the death of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

If act done without woman’s consent — and if the act is done without the consent of the
woman, shall be punished either with imprisonment for life, or with the punishment above
mentioned.
Section 315:- Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to
die after birth
Whoever before the birth of any child does any act with the intention of thereby preventing
that child from being born alive or causing it to die after its birth, and does by such act
prevent that child from being born alive, or causes it to die after its birth, shall, if such act
be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both.
Section 316:- Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide-
Whoever does any act under such circumstances, that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of
culpable homicide, and does by such act cause the death of a quick unborn child, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine

.IllustrationsA, knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it
caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide. The woman is injured, but does not die;
but the death of an unborn quick child with which she is pregnant is thereby caused. A is guilty of the offence
defined in this section
Section 317:- Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years, by parent or person having
care of it - Whoever being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years, or having the care of
such child, shall expose or leave such child in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such child,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with
fine, or with both.ExplanationsThis section is not intended to prevent the trial of the offender for murder or
culpable homicide, as the case may be, if the child die in consequence of the exposure.
Section 318:- Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body
Whoever, by secretly burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body of a child whether such child die
before or after or during its birth, intentionally conceals or endeavors to conceal the birth of such child,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
Kidnapping
The word 'kidnapping' has been derived from the word 'kid' which means 'child' and 'napping' which
means 'to steal'. Thus kidnapping literally means child stealing.
Kidnapping under the Code is not confined to child-stealing. It has been given a wider connotation as
meaning carrying away of a human being against his or her consent, or against the consent of some
person legally authorised to accord consent on behalf of such person. It happens in the case where a
male is below 16 and if a female is below 18 years or in the case of an insane
Kidnapping means taking away a person against his/her will by force, threat or deceit. Usually, the
purpose of kidnapping is to get a ransom, or for some political or other purposes etc. Kidnapping is
classified into two categories in Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code and defined in Section 360 and
361 of the Indian Penal code
Section 359:- Kidnapping
Kidnapping is of two kinds:kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship
Section 359:- Kidnapping
Kidnapping is of two kinds:kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship

Kidnapping from India

Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some
person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India.
Essential ingredients

To attract this section the following two ingredients must be fulfilled:

(i) Conveying of any person beyond the limits of India,

(ii) Without the consent of that person, or of some one legally authorized to consent on behalf of that
person.
Conveying without consent
The word 'convey' literally means simply going together on a journey but in popular parlance, it now
means carrying a person to his destination. However, mere conveying of a person from one place to
another is not criminal. That act becomes criminal if he is conveyed without his consent. A person may be
conveyed as much by using force as by inducing him to give his consent by fraud and deceptio
Illustration: ‘A’ is a woman living in chennai ‘B takes ‘A’ to Delhi without her consent. ‘B’ committed the
offence of kidnapping ‘A’ from India.
Kidnapping from lawful guardian
361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen
years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful
guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is
said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation

The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care
or custody of such minor or other person.

Exception
This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be
the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful
custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
The following are the essentials of this offence:--
(1) The offence is committed by "taking" or "enticing" of a minor person or a person of unsound mind.
(2) The person kidnapped must be:
(a) under the age of 16, male or
(b) Under the age of 18, if female, or
(c) a person of unsound mind.
(3) The "taking" or "enticing" must be out of the keeping of lawful guardian of such minor or person of
unsound mind.
(4) The "taking" or "enticing" must also be without the consent the guardian.
(5) The consent of the minor is immaterial.

The word 'takes' means cause to go, to escort or to get into possession and the word 'entice' involves an
idea of inducement by exciting hope or desire in the other.
The motive of the kidnapper is immaterial, unless it falls within the exception to the section.

Besides, its essential ingredients, the courts have formulated certain guiding principles:
(1) In case of minor girls this section is attracted irrespective of the question whether she is married or
unmarried; State of Himachal Pradesh v. M. Kala, AIR 1957-HP 42.
(2) Consent of the minor is immaterial; State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, MANU/SC/0262/1972 : AIR 1973
SC 819.
(3) The motive or intention of the kidnapper is also immaterial; State v. Sulekh Chand, AIR 1964 Punj 83.
(4) If the kidnapped girl turns out to be under 18 years of age, the kidnapper must take the consequences,
even though he bona fidely believed and had reasonable ground for believing that she was over eighteen;
R. v. Prince, 1875 LR 2 CCR 154.
Thus, the essentials of kidnapping from lawful guardianship are:
1. Minor/ person unsound of mind
2. Taken away from lawful gaurdian
3. Without the consent of lawful gaurdian
ABDUCTION
Meaning of 'Abduction'
Abduction in common language means the carrying away of a person by fraud or force; Vishwanathv.
State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960SC 67.Section 362, I.P.C. defines 'abduction' as: Whoever by force
compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that
person.
According to the section 362, I.P.C. abduction takes place when any person by force compels, or by any
deceitful means induces another person, to go from any place. Abduction pure and simple is not an
offence. It is an auxiliary act not punishable in itself, but when it is accompanied by a certain intention to
commit another offence, it per se becomes punishable as an offence. For instance:
(a) If the intention is that the person abducted may be murdered or so disposed of as to be put in danger
of being murdered, section 364, I.P.C. applies;
(b) If the intention is to confine secretly or wrongfully a person, section 365, I.P.C. applies;
(c) if the abducted person is a woman and the intention is that she may be compelled, or is likely to be
compelled, to marry any person against her will, or may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or is
likely to be so forced or seduced, section 366, I.P.C. applies;
(d) If the intention is to cause grievous hurt, or to dispose of the person abducted as to put him in danger
of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of any person, section 367, I.P.C.
applies;
(e) If the abducted person is a child under the age of ten years and the intention is to take dishonestly
any movable property from its person, section 369, I.P.C. applies.
The expression 'deceitful', as used here, has wide connotation to include inducing a girl to leave her guardian's hous
on a pretext. It also implies the use of misrepresentation by act or conduct.

Abduction is 'continuing offence'

Abduction is a continuing offence and a person is liable not only when a person is first moved from one place to
another, but all those who are involved in subsequently moving that person to other place are also liable.
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'KIDNAPPING' AND 'ABDUCTION

Kidnapping (from Lawful Guardianship) (section 361, I.P.C.)

Abduction (section 362, I.P.C)

1. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship as defined in section 361 is committed, (i) in respect of minors, if male under 16
and if a female under 18 years of age, and (ii) in respect of a person of unsound mind (of any age).

1. Abduction may take place against a person of any age. Likewise, kidnapping from India as discussed in section 360,
I.P.C. can take in respect of any person irrespective of his or her age.

2.Kidnapping is the removal of a person from lawful guardianship.

2. Abduction has reference only to the person abducted.

3. Kidnapping is simply taking away of a minor or a person of unsound mind. The means used are not relevant.

3. In abduction, force, compulsion, or deceitful means are used.

4. Consent of person kidnapped is immaterial.

4. Free and voluntary consent of the person abducted condones abduction.

Intention of the kidnapper is immaterial for the offence.

5. Intention of the abductor is an important factor in determining guilt of the accused.

6. Kidnapping is a substantive offence.

6. Abduction is not a substantive offence and is not punishable in itself. It is an offence

only when done with some other intent as given in sections 363A, 364, 364A to 369,
I.P.C.

7. Kidnapping is not a continuing offence. It is complete as soon as the minor or person

of unsound mind is removed from lawful guardianship.

7. Abduction is a continuing offence and continues so long as the abducted person is

removed from one place to another.

8. In kidnapping there must be taking or enticing from a lawful guardian.

8. In abduction the question of taking or enticing does not arise.

In Prakash v. State of Haryana, (2004) 1 SCC 339 the fact was, the victim was taken away by the
accused appellant who was known to her for fulfilling his lust and her absence was noticed by her
octogenarian grandmother. She went out in search of her. After going a short distance she could here the
cries of the victim and rushed to the house of the accused from where her sound was coming. She found
the victim naked and the accused appellant lying on top of her. The father of the victim lodged the report
on learning about the incident from the victim and her grandmother.
Issue:
Does the conduct of the accused amounts to kidnapping within the meaning of section 361, I.P.C.?
Decision:
It was observed by the Supreme Court that, the object of this section 361, I.P.C. seems as much to
protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and
privileges of guardians having the lawful charge of custody of their minor wards. The graveness of this
offence lies in taking or enticing of a minor under the ages specified in this section, out of the keeping of
the lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian. The words "takes or entices any minor.... out of
the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor" in section 361 are significant. The use of the word
"keeping" in the context connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control; further, the
guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with the independence of action and movement
of the minor, the guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity
arises. On plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly
immaterial; it is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its purview. Nor is it necessary
that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud. Persuasion by the
accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the
With the above observations, the apex Court held that the conduct of the accused amounts to
kidnapping within the meaning of section 361, I.P.C.
In S. Vardarajan v. State : AIR 1965 SC 942 the fact was, Savitri was a girl under 18 years of age.
She was living with her father studying B.Sc. in Madras.

On hearing that Savitri wanted to marry Vardarajan the accused, who was their immediate neighbour,
her father took her to the house of a relation and left there so that for some time she was to kept as far
away from the accused as possible.

On the next day, however, Savitri telephoned the accused and asked him to meet her at a certain place
which he did. They then went to a shop to buy Mangalayam, took two witnesses and went to the
registrar's office for getting the marriage registered. Afterwards the couple went and stayed in a hotel
for a day and later went around the places.
Issue:

The question was whether the accused had taken away the girl from the lawful guardian within the
meaning of section 361.

The Supreme Court held:

The Supreme Court held:

Whether a minor girl having the capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily leaves her father's
protection and joins another protection, it cannot be said that she had been taken away from the keeping of the lawf
guardian. Some thing more has to be shown in a case of this kind as for e.g., some kind of inducement held out by
the accused or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the
guardian. It would be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving of
father's protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the
minor to do so. If evidence to establish one of these things is lacking it would not be legitimate to infer that the
accused is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she had actually
left her guardian's house or a house where her guardian has joined the accused and the accused helped her in her
design not to return to her guardian's house by taking her along with him from place to place. It may be that the part
played by the accused in such a case facilitated the fulfilment of the intention of the girl. The part falls short of an
inducement to the minor to step out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and therefore does not tantamount to
"taking away
Section 363:- Punishment for kidnapping Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful
guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Sexual offences against women

Unnatural offences