CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

Centuries have come, and centuries have gone, but the plight of women is not likely to change.
Time has helplessly watched women suffering in the form of discrimination, oppression,
exploitation, degradation, aggression, humiliation. In Indian society, woman occupies a vital
position and venerable place. The Vedas glorified women as the mother, the creator, one who
gives life and worshipped her as a ‘Devi' or Goddess. But their glorification was rather mythical
at the same time, in India women found themselves totally suppressed and subjugated in a
patriarchal society.

Our societies continue to experience crime against women in India despite the efforts of the
government to toughen bills that prosecute men who attempt to rape women and also
criminalise offences like stalking and voyeurism. From the very beginning of our society
women are being exploited in every nock and corner of the society. Now in recent era of our
country this crime against women are being extended up to the level of unbearable. The creators
of our society are in danger.1

Women is one of the segments of society that is vulnerable to various problems. They are the
victims of a major league of the crimes that occur today. Although, women may be victims of
any of the general crimes such as murder, robbery, cheating, etc. only the crimes which are
directed specifically against women are characterized as ‘crimes against women’. The semantic
meaning of ‘crime against women’ is direct or indirect physical or mental cruelty to women.
These crimes are not only injurious and immoral for the women but for the society as a whole.
We are classifying the crimes against women in to some categories namely:

a. Sexual crimes
b. Matrimonial offences
c. Offences relating to dowry
d. Offences relating to miscarriage

1
Cited by Justice J.N. Bhatt, “Gender Justice Turmoil or triumph”, Indian Bar Review Vol. XXV (2), 1998,
P.18

1
 e. Offences relating to trafficking

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORK PLACE

Art.21 is the Magna Carta of Indian Constitution. Right to life enshrined in Art.21 embodies in
itself the right to live with dignity2 and State is under a constitutional command to ensure this
right to all citizens.3The right to dignity would include the right against being subjected to
humiliating sexual acts and right against being insulted.4 These rights are inherent and not
conferred.5 Dehumanizing acts of sexual harassment, sexual abuse and flesh trade are gnawing
evils, which is a serious blow to woman’s supreme honor and offends her self-esteem.6 Every
female has basic right to be treated with decency and dignity.7

Vishaka v. State of Rajathan8

The Supreme Court in this case laid down, for the first-time strictures that aimed at protecting
a woman employee by giving her right to a safe/healthy working environment. In the decision,
the Court also defined sexual harassment and recognized it to be a paramount violation of
human rights. The court thereby laid down certain mandatory and binding guidelines to be
followed by all workplaces, belonging to the public and private sectors and made it imperative
for every employer to ensure a safe, harassment free working environment for the women.
These strictures can be applied to educational institutions as well.

Smt. Manju Lata Gupta v.Union of India Postal Department, through Secretary/Director
General Dak Bhawan and Ors.9

The petitioner was the only female employee in a post office. She was often sexually harassed
by the co-employees. Hence, invoking the Vishaka guidelines she demanded for her transfer
but the response was nil. Because of this, she went on leave. Immediately, the petitioner was
charge sheeted for remaining absent, which she admits that she had to remain absent, but she
had to apply for leave because of the reason that she was unable to work in the office in such a

2
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)3 SCC 161; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)1 SCC
248 and Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar (1983)1 SCC 124
3
Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/1094/2012
4
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997)11 SCC 121
5
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746
6
Bodhisathwa Gautam v. Chandrima Das (2000)2 SCC 465; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)6 SCC 241
7
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh AIR 1999 SC 2378
8
AIR 1997 SC 3011
9
2007(3) WLN 696

2
hostile atmosphere. The view of the Court in this case was, ‘The enquiry has not been
completed as yet. If the authorities in view of the circumstances are still inclined to continue
with the charge sheet, it is expected that the authorities shall take into consideration all these
circumstances. If, ultimately any adverse order is passed against the petitioner she is at liberty
to challenge the same.’

It is pathetic that the Court rather than effecting the Vishaka guidelines let away the culprits
and denied justice to a woman.

Alleged abduction and murder of Bhanwari Devi

Vishaka guidelines are the culmination of Bhanwari Devi’s legal battle against the brutal gang
rape committed against her.10 For her endeavor she was awarded Neerja Bhanot Memorial
Award.11 On January 5, 2012 suspected remains of Bhanwari Devi were found by CBI
officials.12 This clearly implicates that the Court was unable to protect Bhanwari Devi, the real
impetus of Vishaka judgment in spite of delivering mandatory guidelines which had binding
effect all over the nation.

RAPE

When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury but the deep sense of
some deathless shame. Hence judicial response to Human Rights cannot be blunted by legal
bigotry.13 Therefore rape laws in order to be of great deterrence, must have a cooperative
victim, professional investigation, diligent prosecution; and an expeditious trial. For otherwise
it shall not be the law, that fails, but the applicants, the process and application. 14 Sec.375 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines rape and Sec.376 prescribes punishment for the same.

10
S V Manohar, B N Kirpal (Aug 1997) "Vishaka & Ors v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August 1997"
(http://www. webcitation.org/6891WS3sS). Supreme Court of India - 241
11
1994, she was awarded the Neerja Bhanot Memorial Award carrying Rs. 1 lakh cash prize, for her
"extraordinary courage, conviction and commitment" - "A Defiant Dalit Woman's Fight for Justice"
(http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1994vol01no01/1935/) PUCL Bulletin Vol. XIV No. 10. People's
Union for Civil Liberties. October 1994.
12
At an isolated spot in Jaloda village, her body was reportedly burnt in a 30-feet-deep pit and her remains
thrown into the Rajiv Gandhi lift canal that runs close by. Police divers found her watch, pieces of burnt bones,
a tooth, a broken locket and a toe ring from the canal where her body was set on fire: http://www.ndtv.com/
article/india/bhanwari-devi-dead-close-missing-case-cbi-tells-court-165411
13
Observation by Krishna Iyer, J. in Rafique’s case [1980 Cr.LJ 1344 SC]
14
Vide Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. UOI (1995) 1 SCC 14

3
Later amendments inserted Sections 376A, 376B, 376C and 376D to enhance the punishment
for the offence.

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra15

The prosecution of alleged that Ganpat, the Police Head Constable and Tukaram Police
Constable raped a girl named Mathura in the police station. On 26th of March, 1972, Gama
lodged a report at the police station alleging Mathura had been kidnapped by Nunshi, her
husband Laxman and Ashok. The statements were recorded. By 10:30 p.m. Baburao asked all
the persons to leave. After Baburao left Mathura, Nunshi and Gama and Ashok started to leave
the police station. The appellants, however, asked Mathura to wait and told her companions to
move out. The direction was complied with. Ganpat took Mathura into a latrine, took off her
clothes and stared at her private parts with the aid of a torch. Thereafter, dragged her to a
Chhapri on the back side and raped her. Subsequently, Tukaram fondled with her private parts
but could not rape her because he was in a highly intoxicated condition. Nunshi, Gama and
Ashok who were waiting outside the police station for Mathura grew suspicious, shouted and
attracted a crowd. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged. Trial Court acquitted the accused
whereas High court Convicted them. But the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in spite of
the statements of the victim causing irreparable scars on the face of womanhood.

DOWRY DEATH

Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 elaborates on the offence of Dowry death. It
simply implicates the death of a woman caused by demand for dowry. With reference to
Sec.304B, whoever commits the offence of dowry death shall attract a punishment of
imprisonment for a term not less than seven years and shall extend to imprisonment for life.

Soran Singh v. State16

Mamta was sexually harassed by Soran Singh, her father-in-law. Also, Soran Singh and
Mamta’s husband continuously harassed her for demand of dowry. Later on, she committed
suicide. In this case the court held that Appellant Soran Singh shall suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and
shall suffer imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A

15
AIR 1979 SC 185
16
MANU/DE/0607/2010

4
IPC. Appellant Rakesh shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence
punishable under Section 304B IPC and shall suffer imprisonment for a period of 3 years for
the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The sentences upon both the appellants shall
run concurrently. The appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

EVE TEASING

Eve-Teasing is a euphemism, a conduct which attracts penal action.1 Eve-teasing led to the
death of a woman in the year 1998 in the State of Tamil Nadu which led the Government
bringing an ordinance, namely, the Tami Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Ordinance, 1998,
which later became an Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Act, 1998.17

The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. v. S. Samuthiram18

Eve teasing today has become pernicious, horrid and disgusting practice. In this decision, the
Supreme Court categorized eve teasing into five heads viz.

(1) verbal eve teasing

(2) physical eve teasing

(3) psychological harassment

(4) sexual harassment

(5) harassment through some objects.

Further, the Court observed that more and more girl students, women etc. go to educational
institutions, work places etc. and their protection is of extreme importance to a civilized and
cultured society. The experiences of women and girl children in over-crowded buses, metros,
trains etc. are horrendous and a painful ordeal. Sexual harassment like eve-teasing of women
amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 as well. It was noted that in the
absence of effective legislation to contain eve-teasing, normally, complaints shall be registered
under Section 29419 or Section 50920 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

17
The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. V. S. Samuthiram, 2012(11) SCALE 420 (Para 2)
18
2012 (11) SCALE 420
19
Obscene Acts and Songs
20
Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman

5
MOLESTATION AND OUTRAGING THE MODESTY OF A WOMAN

The offence of outraging the modesty of a women has been breathed into the bones of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 through Section 354. Secs. 511, 294 etc. are also penal provisions that
embody similar perspectives. Let us now examine how far has these provisions have been
success in imparting justice to the victims.

Ruchika Girhotra Case

SPS Rathore v. State through CBI21 popularly known as the Ruchika Girhotra Case involves
the molestation of 14-year-old Ruchika Girhotra in 1990 by the Inspector General of Police
Shambhu Pratap Singh Rathore (S.P.S. Rathore) in Haryana, India. After she made a complaint,
the victim, her family, and her friends were systematically harassed by the police leading to
her eventual suicide. On December 22, 2009, after 19 years, 40 adjournments, and more than
400 hearings, the court finally pronounced Rathore guilty under Section 354 IPC (molestation)
and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. The CBI had opposed
Rathore's plea and had sought an enhancement of his sentence from six months to the maximum
of two years after his conviction. Rejecting his appeal against his conviction by a Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special court, Chandigarh District Court on May 25 sentenced
the disgraced former police official to one and a half years of rigorous imprisonment, enhancing
his earlier six-month sentence and immediately taken into custody and taken to the Burail
prison. On 11 November 2010, the Supreme Court granted bail to S P S Rathore on the
condition that he should not leave Chandigarh.22

21
Criminal Appeal No: 5 of 12.1.2010.(Decision of 25.05.2010 In the Court of SH. Gurbir Singh, Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandigarh)
22
Vide SPS Rathore v. CBI, Crl. Revision No.1558 of 2010 (O&M) (Decided on 01.09.2010, Punjab and
Haryana High Court)

6
CONCLUSION

Shallow statements, inert and inadequate laws with sloppy enforcement isn’t enough for true
and genuine upliftment of our half most precious population- women.23 Protection of women
is of extreme importance to a civilized and cultured society.24 The protection of children too is
a growing need of the day. It is the responsibility of State to ensure safety to every child of the
nation. The same has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Ignoring the directions of Supreme
Court "amounts to judicial impropriety" and such "judicial adventurism cannot be permitted."25

A well bonded legislature, executive and judiciary together with the joint effort of responsible
population could bring the suffering women and children from the darkness of crimes to the
light of safety and protection. ‘Little drops of water make the mighty ocean.’ Likewise, let us
all invest our part towards molding a crime free India.

23
Seema Lepcha v. State of Sikkim and Ors., 2012 (2) SCALE 635
24
Rupan Deol Bajaj and Anr. V. K.P.S. Gill, (1995)6 SCCC 194
25
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. V. Prem Heavy Engg. Works(P) Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 2477

7
REFERENCES

1. Parabrahma Sastri, Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Asia Law House, Hyderabad, 1st edn.,
2010)
2. Aruna Goel, Violence and Protective Measures for Women Development and
Empowerment (Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2004)
3. G.B. Reddy, Women and The Law (Gogia Law Agency, Hyderabad, 5th edn., 2002)
4. Mukherjee, Law relating to Sexual Harrasment and Sexual offences (Kamal
Publishers, New Delhi, 2010)
5. N. K. Acharya, Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court (Asia Law
House, Hyderabad, 2nd edn., 2008)
6. P.K. Das, Supreme Court on Rarest Of Rare Cases (Universal Law Publishing
Co., New Delhi, 2011)
7. Shobha Saxena, Crime Against Women and Protective Laws (Deep & Deep
Publications Pvt.ltd., New Delhi, 1995)