Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Major Singh on 28 April, 1966

Sri Naveen V vs State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC:18812 CRL.P No. 4778 of 2025 HC-KAR could be outraged. In answering the above question Mudholkar J., who along with Bachawat J. spoke for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC. Needless to say, the `common notions of mankind' referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. The other learned Judge (Bachawat J.) observed that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case (supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman..."
Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Parashuramappa vs State By on 16 April, 2025

10. "9. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 [IPC] mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of Punjab v. Major Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63] .) A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1