Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The Law Commission considered some of the matters in its 156th Report and answered the reference by stating. "sexual child abuse may be committed in various forms such as sexual intercourse, carnal intercourse and sexual assaults. The cases involving penile penetration into vagina are covered under Section 375 IPC. If there is any case of penile/oral penetration and penile penetration into anus, Section 377 IPC dealing with unnatural offences ........... If acts such as penetration of finger or any inanimate object into vagina or anus are committed against a woman or a female child, the provisions of the proposed Section 354 IPC ........ would be attracted. A distinction has to be naturally maintained between sexual assault/use of criminal force falling under Section 354, sexual offences falling under Section 375 and unnatural offences falling under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. It may not be appropriate to bring unnatural offences punishable under Section 377 IPC or mere sexual assault or mere sexual use of criminal force which may attract Section 354 IPC within the ambit of `rape' which is a distinct and graver offence with a definite connotation". Paragraph 9.59 of the Report is extracted in the judgment in Sakshi's case (supra).

28. Since detailed arguments were addressed on the question whether offence under Sections 376 or 354 IPC is made out in this case, I do not think that my duty is over by merely deciding whether the accused deserves to be released on bail or not. It is clear from the arguments advanced in this case that in cases where there is lack of evidence regarding penile penetration or attempt of the same, whatever be the nature of sexual assault made on a child or a woman, which falls short of penile-vaginal penetration or an attempt of the same, it may constitute only an offence under Section 354 or 377 IPC. Section 354 IPC is attracted in cases where criminal force  used by accused with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman. It can range from mere catching hold of a woman's hand to any heinous nature of sexual assault which may fall short of penile penetration or an attempt to do so or unnatural offence. There is a wide gap between the mere using of criminal force to outrage modesty of a woman and commission of rape as defined under Sections 354 and 376 IPC respectively. A wide range of sexual assaults may fall within the gap, but in my considered view, there is no adequate provisoin in the Indian Penal Code which will effectively commensurate the gravity of the sexual assaults made on women and children by the opposite sex. There are several occasions while courts may feel handicapped there being no appropriate provision of law to take care of the situation and also to award appropriate punishment for the sexual assault.

32. It is clear from the above facts that even in a case in which a child of tender age of 7 = months was subjected to such inhuman sexual violence the courts could not find any provision in the Indian Penal Code other than a bailable offence under Section 354 IPC, to convict the accused who committed certain acts which are revolting to the conscience of any right thinking person. It is also to be remembered that being a bailable offence, he must have been granted bail also, immediately after the crime. The society may criticize the sentence awarded by the Supreme Court as too inadequate a  punishment, but that is the maximum punishment which can be imposed under Section 354 IPC. If the accused has no intention to commit "penile penetration" or attempt to do so, whatever be the nature of sexual assault except unnatural offence, it falls under Section 354 IPC which is punishable with two years imprisonment and fine. The offence is bailable also.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years, but which shall not be less than two years"

37. The punishment was enhanced and the offence under Section 354 IPC is made a non-bailable one in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Some other States also made offence under Section 354 IPC, a non- bailable one. I am of view that, at least, by making offence under Section 354 IPC a non-bailable one, and by effecting amendment to the sentence suitably for offence under Section 354 IPC the evil can be curbed to a certain extent. This can be done at the State level itself. Hence, I take this opportunity to alert the law-making authority in the State to consider whether suitable amendments can be brought in, to Section 354 IPC for protecting the child/woman from sexual assaults other than which are covered by Section 375 IPC. This may be done,  after considering various aspects, including Law Commission Reports on the question and also possibility of misuse of the provision.