Section 354 IPC vs Section 74 BNS — Assault or Criminal Force on Woman with Intent to Outrage Modesty

# Section 354 IPC vs Section 74 BNS — Assault on Woman with Intent to Outrage Modesty

The offence of assault or use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty — commonly referred to as "molestation" in everyday language — is one of the most frequently charged offences relating to the safety of women. Under the IPC, the primary provision was **Section 354**. Under the BNS, the corresponding provision is **Section 74**. This page provides an educational comparison.

Section Text

Section 354 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

> "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

(Note: After the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, sub-sections 354A, 354B, 354C, and 354D were added covering sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, and stalking respectively.)

Section 74 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)

> Section 74 BNS retains the offence of assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty with the same minimum punishment of one year and maximum of five years, along with fine. The related offences (sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, and stalking) are covered under Sections 75, 76, 77, and 78 BNS respectively.

Plain Language Explanation

This provision protects women from any form of physical assault or use of force that is intended to violate their modesty or dignity. "Modesty" in legal terms refers to the feminine decency and dignity of a woman. The offence covers a wide range of physical acts — from groping and inappropriate touching to forcibly disrobing — that are intended to outrage or are known to be likely to outrage a woman's modesty.

The 2013 amendments to the IPC added specific provisions for sexual harassment (354A), assault with intent to disrobe (354B), voyeurism (354C), and stalking (354D). These have been carried forward into the BNS under Sections 75-78.

Key Ingredients / Elements

1. **The victim must be a woman.**

2. **The accused must have assaulted or used criminal force against her.**

3. **The act must be done with the intention of outraging her modesty, or with the knowledge that it is likely to do so.**

The Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and subsequent cases has interpreted "modesty" broadly to include the sexual and personal dignity of a woman.

IPC vs BNS Comparison Table

| Feature | Section 354 IPC | Section 74 BNS |

|---|---|---|

| **Offence** | Assault/criminal force to outrage modesty | Assault/criminal force to outrage modesty |

| **Minimum Punishment** | 1 year imprisonment | 1 year imprisonment |

| **Maximum Punishment** | 5 years imprisonment, and fine | 5 years imprisonment, and fine |

| **Sexual Harassment** | Section 354A IPC | Section 75 BNS |

| **Disrobing** | Section 354B IPC | Section 76 BNS |

| **Voyeurism** | Section 354C IPC | Section 77 BNS |

| **Stalking** | Section 354D IPC | Section 78 BNS |

| **Cognizable** | Yes | Yes |

| **Bailable** | No | No |

| **Triable by** | Any Magistrate | Any Magistrate |

| **Compoundable** | No | No |

| **Substantive change** | — | No substantive change in Section 74; structural reorganisation of related offences |

Key Differences and Observations

The BNS has **retained the substance and punishment** of Section 354 IPC. The minimum sentence of one year (introduced by the 2013 amendments) and the maximum of five years continue unchanged. The related offences of sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, and stalking are also carried forward with their respective punishments.

The BNS places all offences against women's dignity in a more organised chapter, making the legal framework easier to navigate. The definitions and punishments remain substantially the same as under the amended IPC.

One area where future judicial development is expected is in the interpretation of "modesty" in the context of evolving social norms and the expanding understanding of dignity rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Important Judgments

1. **Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241** — While primarily dealing with workplace sexual harassment, this landmark case broadened the understanding of women's dignity and modesty in Indian law.

2. **Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194** — The Supreme Court held that even a single act of slapping on the posterior constitutes outraging the modesty of a woman, regardless of the social status of the parties involved.

3. **State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63** — The Court discussed the meaning of "modesty" and held that even a very young girl possesses modesty that can be outraged. The modesty of a woman is not dependent on her age.

4. **Pappu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006)** — Discussed the ingredients of Section 354 and held that the intention to outrage modesty can be inferred from the nature of the act itself — explicit evidence of intention is not always necessary.

5. **Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 4 SCC 371** — The Court held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, and the act of pulling a woman and removing her clothes constitutes outraging modesty under Section 354.

Practical Implications

- **For legal practitioners:** The key challenge in Section 354/74 cases is often establishing the intention to outrage modesty. Courts have held that intention can be inferred from the nature of the act, the circumstances, and the surrounding evidence. Practitioners should focus on the factual narrative and the nature of physical contact.

- **For accused persons:** The minimum sentence of one year means that even a conviction in the mildest case results in at least one year of imprisonment. Bail is not a matter of right since the offence is non-bailable.

- **For victims:** Immediate reporting is crucial. A detailed statement describing the nature of the physical contact, the circumstances, and the words spoken is important evidence. Medical examination, where relevant, and CCTV footage can corroborate the complaint.

- **For law enforcement:** Officers must record the victim's statement sensitively and in accordance with legal requirements. The statement of a woman under Section 164 CrPC (now corresponding provision under BNSS) should be recorded by a woman officer where possible.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the punishment for outraging the modesty of a woman changed under BNS?

No. The punishment remains a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 5 years' imprisonment with fine, the same as under Section 354 IPC (post-2013 amendment). The BNS has retained the same punishment framework.

What constitutes "outraging the modesty" of a woman?

Any act of assault or criminal force that is intended to violate a woman's sexual and personal dignity constitutes outraging her modesty. This includes unwanted touching, groping, grabbing, forcible kissing, pulling clothes, and similar acts. Courts have interpreted "modesty" broadly — it is not necessary that the act involve sexual penetration (which would be rape) or even direct skin contact.

Are stalking and voyeurism covered under Section 74 BNS?

No, stalking and voyeurism are covered under separate provisions. Stalking is covered under Section 78 BNS (corresponding to Section 354D IPC), and voyeurism is covered under Section 77 BNS (corresponding to Section 354C IPC). These are distinct offences with their own punishment provisions.

Can this offence be compounded (settled between parties)?

No. After the 2013 amendments, the offence under Section 354 IPC was made non-compoundable. This continues under Section 74 BNS. The offence cannot be settled between the parties, and the prosecution must proceed regardless of any compromise.

---

*This content is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, consult a qualified legal professional. Content is compliant with Bar Council of India guidelines on legal information sharing.*