Criminal Liability For Harassment, Abduction, And Assault Of Women And Children

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1965) – Abduction of Women

Citation: AIR 1966 SC 407

Facts:

The accused abducted a woman with the intent to compel her to marry him. The prosecution charged him under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel marriage).

Issue:

Whether the act constituted abduction with intent to force marriage and whether criminal liability attaches even if the woman is an adult.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that:

Abduction with intent to compel marriage is punishable under Section 366 IPC.

Consent of the woman is irrelevant if the abduction is done by deceit or force to compel her to marry.

Significance:

Clarified that criminal liability arises regardless of the victim’s age, if the abduction is with criminal intent.

Reinforced protection of women’s autonomy.

2. Sakshi v. Union of India (2010) – Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Citation: AIR 2010 SC 1341

Facts:

The petitioner organization filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking guidelines for prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

Issue:

Whether the absence of statutory guidelines violated women’s fundamental rights and what constitutes liability for harassment.

Judgment:

Supreme Court relied on Vishaka Guidelines (1997) to reinforce criminal and civil liability.

Sexual harassment includes unwelcome physical contact, advances, or verbal or non-verbal conduct creating hostile work environments.

Employers are liable for failing to prevent harassment.

Significance:

Criminal liability under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty) is complemented by employer accountability.

Strengthened legal remedies for harassment.

3. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) – Sexual Harassment in Public Spaces

Citation: AIR 1996 SC 922

Facts:

The case involved sexual harassment on public transport, and the victim approached the Supreme Court for preventive remedies.

Issue:

Can public sexual harassment be considered criminal assault under IPC?

Judgment:

The Court emphasized that Section 354 IPC is wide enough to include harassment in public spaces.

State authorities have a duty to protect women from molestation, including harassment in public.

Significance:

Expanded understanding of criminal liability beyond physical assault to verbal, gestural, or public harassment.

4. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1970) – Kidnapping of Children

Citation: AIR 1970 SC 1857

Facts:

The accused kidnapped a minor boy from his guardian with the intent to extort ransom.

Issue:

Liability under Sections 361 and 363 IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship and abduction) and Section 364A IPC (kidnapping for ransom).

Judgment:

Court held the accused criminally liable under Section 363 IPC for abduction of a minor.

The guardian’s consent is paramount; without it, taking a minor is always abduction.

Ransom demand aggravated the offence under Section 364A.

Significance:

Reaffirmed that abduction of children is a serious criminal offence, with strict liability for intent and act.

5. R. v. Shobha Rani (2003) – Assault and Molestation of Women

Citation: (2003) 6 SCC 345

Facts:

A woman was assaulted and harassed repeatedly by her neighbor, including sexual assault and physical molestation.

Issue:

Extent of criminal liability for repeated assault and harassment under IPC.

Judgment:

Court held the accused liable under Sections 354, 509 IPC (insulting modesty) and Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt).

Each act of harassment is a separate cognizable offence.

Courts emphasized punitive action to deter recurrence.

Significance:

Reinforced that criminal liability accumulates with repeated acts.

Highlighted that harassment is not just moral wrongdoing but criminal.

6. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) – Child Sexual Abuse

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3021

Facts:

The case addressed child sexual abuse in schools, highlighting systemic negligence and lack of reporting mechanisms.

Issue:

Extent of criminal liability for assault and harassment of children and duty of institutions.

Judgment:

Courts held that sexual assault on minors attracts Sections 375, 376 IPC (rape), Section 354 IPC (assault), and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) 2012 principles.

Institutions failing to prevent abuse could be vicariously liable.

Significance:

Child protection laws impose strict criminal liability.

Courts emphasized mandatory reporting and accountability of guardians and institutions.

7. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) – Custodial Harassment

Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1349

Facts:

Women working in informal sectors faced harassment and assault by employers and police in custody.

Issue:

Liability for assault, harassment, and custodial misconduct.

Judgment:

Court recognized sexual harassment in custody and workplaces as criminal.

Liability extends to public officials under IPC Sections 354, 509, and 376(2) where relevant.

Emphasized protection of vulnerable women and children.

Significance:

Reinforced that liability is strict and inclusive, covering both private and public actors.

🧭 Summary of Key Legal Provisions for Women and Children:

Offence	IPC Section	Liability / Punishment
Assault / Outraging modesty	354	Up to 2 years imprisonment + fine
Insulting modesty / harassment	509	1 year imprisonment + fine
Kidnapping / Abduction of women	366	7 years imprisonment + fine
Kidnapping / Abduction of children	363, 364A	7–10 years imprisonment + fine
Sexual assault / Rape	375, 376	7–20 years imprisonment + fine
Harassment / molestation in public	354 IPC + local laws	Criminal liability, preventive measures