UNIT 1 NOTES

OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN UNDER BNS.

The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the age-old Indian
Penal Code, marks a significant shift in legal frameworks governing crimes, particularly
those concerning women. Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offences against women,
including rape, voyeurism, stalking, and outraging the modesty of a woman, are strictly
prohibited. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has introduced important updates to the legal
framework concerning crimes against women, aiming to strengthen protections and address
evolving challenges. Significant changes include raising the age for considering victims as
minors in gang rape cases from 16 to 18 years, and criminalising sexual intercourse obtained
through deceit or false promises. The latest provisions expand the scope of existing laws and
introduce stricter penalties for certain offences, reflecting the commitment to enhancing
women’s safety and rights.

1. Punishment for Rape (Section 64)

 Anyone who commits the crime of rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term of at least 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment. In this context,
life imprisonment refers to imprisonment for the offender's entire natural life. The
offender may also be liable to pay a fine.
 Enhanced Punishment in Specific Situations:
o If the offender falls under any of the following categories, the punishment will
be stricter:
(i) The offender is a police officer, public servant, member of the armed forces, or staff
member of a jail or hospital.
(ii) The offender is a relative, guardian, or teacher of the victim.
(iii) The offence occurs during communal or sectarian violence.
(iv) The victim is known to be pregnant.
(v) The victim is incapable of giving consent due to a physical or mental disability.
(vi) The offender is in a position of control or dominance over the victim.
(vii) The crime results in grievous bodily harm, maiming, disfigurement, or endangers the life
of the victim.
(viii) The offence is committed repeatedly on the same woman.
o In these situations, the offender shall face rigorous imprisonment for a
minimum of 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment for the
remainder of the offender's natural life, along with a fine.
2. Punishment for Rape of Minors (Section 65)
 Victim Under 16 Years:
 o The punishment for raping a minor under the age of 16 is rigorous
imprisonment for a minimum of 20 years, which may extend to life
imprisonment for the offender's entire natural life. A fine shall be imposed to
cover the victim's medical expenses and rehabilitation.
 Victim Under 12 Years:
o If the victim is below 12 years of age, the punishment is rigorous
imprisonment for at least 20 years, potentially extending to life imprisonment
or the death penalty. Any fine imposed must be used for the victim's medical
treatment and rehabilitation.
3. Causing Death or Persistent Vegetative State (Section 66)
 If a rape victim dies or is left in a persistent vegetative state as a result of the crime,
the offender shall face rigorous imprisonment for at least 20 years, which may be
extended to life imprisonment for the rest of their natural life or may even result in the
death penalty.
4. Marital Rape During Separation (Section 67)
 If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife without her consent while they are living
separately, whether legally or otherwise, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term ranging from 2 to 7 years, along with fines.
5. Sexual Intercourse Through Deceit (Section 69)
 Engaging in sexual relations with a woman by employing deceitful means, such as
making false promises of marriage or job offers, is punishable with imprisonment for
a term that may extend to 10 years, along with fines. "Deceitful means" include false
promises of employment, promotion, or marriage after concealing one's identity.
6. Assault or Force with Intent to Outrage Modesty (Section 73)
 Anyone who assaults or uses criminal force against a woman with the intent to
outrage her modesty shall face imprisonment for a term of 1 to 5 years, in addition to
fines.
7. Sexual Harassment (Section 74)
 Offences Covered:
o Sexual harassment includes acts such as:
(i) Unwelcome physical contact and advances with explicit sexual overtones.
(ii) Requests or demands for sexual favors.
(iii) Showing pornography against the will of the woman.
(iv) Making sexually colored remarks.
 Punishment:
 o For acts involving physical contact, demands for favors, or showing
pornography, the punishment may extend to 3 years of imprisonment, fines, or
both.
o For making sexually coloured remarks, the sentence may extend to 1 year of
imprisonment, along with fines.
8. Voyeurism (Section 76)
 Punishable Acts:
o Watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a private act without
her consent is considered an offence.
o A "private act" includes situations where the woman has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, such as using the restroom, being partially undressed,
or engaging in intimate activities.
 Punishment:
o For a first-time conviction, the punishment is 1 to 3 years in prison, along with
fines.
o For subsequent offences, the sentence ranges from 3 to 7 years, along with
fines.
9. Stalking (Section 77)
 Acts Constituting Stalking:
o Stalking includes:
 (i) Following a woman or attempting to contact her repeatedly despite
her clear indications of disinterest.
 (ii) Monitoring her online activities or communications.
 Exceptions:
o The act may not be considered stalking if it is done to prevent or detect crime,
in accordance with legal obligations, or under reasonable circumstances.
 Punishment:
o A first conviction can result in up to 3 years of imprisonment, while repeat
offenders face up to 5 years in prison, in addition to fines.
10. Insulting a Woman's Modesty (Section 78)
 Offence Description:
o Using words, gestures, or objects intended to insult a woman's modesty, or
intruding upon her privacy, is punishable.
 Punishment:
 o The offender may face imprisonment for up to 3 years and may also be subject
to fines.

Salient Features of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: A Comprehensive

Analysis
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is a pivotal piece of legislation in India aimed at curbing
the pernicious practice of dowry that has pervaded Indian society for centuries. Despite
constitutional guarantees for equality and protections against exploitation, the practice of
dowry continues to inflict deep societal and familial harm. This article delves into the salient
features of the Act, emphasizing the legislative intent, key provisions, and the role of the
judiciary in shaping the application of this law.

The analysis highlights significant sections, including the definitions and penalties related to
dowry transactions, the prohibition of dowry-related advertisements, and the procedural
aspects concerning the cognizance of offences under the Act. Moreover, the article scrutinizes
landmark and recent judgments by the Supreme Court of India, providing a nuanced
understanding of the Act's impact and the challenges that remain.

The introduction sets the stage by exploring the historical context and legislative intent
behind the Act, followed by a detailed examination of the most critical sections. Section 2's
definition of "dowry" sets the foundation for the legal framework, while Sections 3 and 4
focus on the penal aspects for giving, taking, or demanding dowry. The article further
discusses Sections 4A, 6, 7, 8A, and 8B, which reinforce the prohibition's enforcement by
addressing advertisements, the rights of the wife or her heirs, and the judicial process.

Through this comprehensive analysis, the article underscores the ongoing relevance of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in contemporary India, notwithstanding the challenges posed
by societal attitudes and enforcement mechanisms.

Introduction
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, enacted on May 20, 1961, represents a significant
legislative effort to eradicate the deeply entrenched practice of dowry in India. Dowry, which
refers to the property, goods, or money given by the bride's family to the groom or his family
as a condition of the marriage, has long been a source of violence and oppression against
women.

The Act was introduced against the backdrop of increasing awareness and agitation by
women's rights groups and social reformers who sought to address the exploitation and abuse
of women under the guise of dowry demands. Despite its enactment over six decades ago, the
Dowry Prohibition Act remains relevant, as dowry-related crimes continue to plague Indian
society, often resulting in severe physical, psychological, and economic harm to women.

The Act's primary objective is to abolish the practice of dowry by criminalizing its giving,
taking, and demanding. The legislation, however, has faced challenges in its enforcement due
to societal norms that perpetuate the dowry system and the lack of stringent implementation
mechanisms. The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting the provisions of the Act,
thereby influencing its application and effectiveness. This article aims to provide a detailed
examination of the Dowry Prohibition Act, focusing on its key sections, judicial
interpretations, and the ongoing challenges in combating dowry-related crimes.

Key Sections of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Section 2: Definition of "Dowry"
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, defines "dowry" as any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to
the other party, or by the parents of either party or by any other person, in connection with the
marriage of the said parties. This definition is pivotal as it lays the foundation for the entire
Act, making it clear that dowry encompasses all forms of tangible and intangible transfers of
wealth associated with marriage. The broad scope of this definition is intended to cover all
potential forms of dowry, including cash, jewellery, real estate, and other valuable items. The
interpretation of this section by the judiciary has been expansive, ensuring that the term
"dowry" captures various forms of transactions that might otherwise escape legal scrutiny.

In the landmark case of K. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 399, the Supreme
Court of India emphasized that the definition of dowry must be interpreted in a manner that
fulfills the legislative intent to prohibit all forms of economic exchanges in connection with
marriage. The Court held that even promises or demands made after the marriage could be
considered part of dowry, provided they are linked to the marriage transaction.

Section 3: Penalty for Giving or Taking Dowry

Section 3 imposes penalties for the giving or taking of dowry. Any person who gives or takes
dowry, or abets the giving or taking of dowry, is punishable with imprisonment for a term not
less than five years and a fine not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of dowry,
whichever is more. This section serves as a deterrent by criminalizing the act of giving and
receiving dowry, making both parties to the transaction liable to prosecution.

The Supreme Court, in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 9 SCC 759, upheld the
conviction of the accused under Section 3, underscoring the non-bailable nature of the
offence and the importance of upholding the law to deter dowry practices. The judgment
reinforced the need for strict enforcement of penalties to combat the dowry menace
effectively.

Section 4: Penalty for Demanding Dowry

Section 4 penalizes the act of demanding dowry. Any person who demands, directly or
indirectly, from the parents or guardians of a bride or bridegroom, any dowry as a condition
for the marriage is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than six months and a
fine, which may extend to five thousand rupees. This section is crucial as it targets the root of
the dowry problem—demanding dowry as a precondition for marriage.

In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309, the Supreme Court emphasized
that even indirect demands for dowry, such as those made through subtle hints or pressures,
fall within the ambit of Section 4. The Court's interpretation highlights the need to address
not just explicit demands but also the more insidious forms of coercion that often accompany
marriage negotiations.

Section 4A: Ban on Advertisement

Section 4A prohibits any advertisement in any newspaper, periodical, or through any other
media offering money, property, or valuable security as consideration for the marriage of any
person. This provision is designed to prevent the public promotion of dowry transactions,
thereby discouraging the commercialization of marriage.

The judiciary, in cases such as Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415, has
upheld the spirit of this section, ruling that any advertisement that indirectly promotes dowry,
even under the guise of gifts or financial assistance, violates the law. This interpretation is
significant in curbing the public endorsement of dowry practices.

Section 6: Dowry to be for the Benefit of the Wife or Her Heirs

Section 6 mandates that dowry received by any person other than the woman in connection
with her marriage must be transferred to the woman within a specified period. If the woman
dies before receiving the dowry, it must be transferred to her heirs. This provision aims to
ensure that the woman, who is the subject of the dowry transaction, retains control over the
property or valuables given in her name.

In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370, the Supreme Court ruled that dowry
items must be returned to the wife or her heirs and that any failure to do so could result in
criminal prosecution. The judgment reinforced the woman's right to her dowry and set a
precedent for protecting women's property rights in dowry cases.

Section 7: Cognizance of Offences

Section 7 outlines the procedural aspects concerning the cognizance of offences under the
Act. It stipulates that no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. Furthermore, it provides that
no court shall take cognizance of any such offence except on its own knowledge or a police
report of the facts constituting the offence or on a complaint made by the person aggrieved by
the offence or a recognized welfare institution or organization.

In Bhagwan Das v. Kamla Devi, (1970) 3 SCC 754, the Supreme Court elucidated that the
provision ensures that only competent judicial authorities handle dowry cases, thereby
maintaining the integrity of the legal process and safeguarding the rights of the aggrieved
parties.

Section 8A: Burden of Proof on the Accused

Section 8A shifts the burden of proof onto the accused in dowry-related cases. This means
that once the prosecution establishes the existence of dowry or a demand for dowry, it is the
responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence. This reversal of the burden of proof is
significant in empowering the victims of dowry harassment, who often face difficulties in
gathering evidence.

The Supreme Court, in Vimla Bai v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 4 SCC 274, upheld the
constitutionality of Section 8A, asserting that the provision is necessary to address the power
imbalances in dowry cases, where the victims are often vulnerable and unable to contest the
might of their in-laws or the husband.

Section 8B: Cognizance of Offences by Courts

Section 8B allows courts to take cognizance of offences under the Act based on a complaint
made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by a recognized welfare institution or
organization. This provision enables third parties, such as NGOs, to initiate legal action
against dowry offenders, thereby broadening the scope of enforcement.

In Tukaram and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 3 SCC 715, the Court reiterated that
Section 8B empowers civil society to play a proactive role in eradicating dowry, highlighting
the importance of collective action in addressing this social evil.

Conclusion
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, remains a critical legislative tool in the fight against
dowry-related crimes in India. While the Act has laid down a robust legal framework, its
effectiveness has been hampered by societal attitudes and enforcement challenges. The
judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing the Act has been pivotal, with numerous
landmark judgments reinforcing the legislative intent and expanding the scope of protection
for women. However, the persistence of dowry-related violence underscores the need for
continued vigilance, stringent enforcement, and societal change.

The provisions of the Act, particularly those discussed in this article, highlight the
comprehensive approach taken by the legislature to address various aspects of the dowry
system. From defining dowry to penalizing its giving, taking, or demanding, and addressing
the procedural aspects of prosecution, the Act seeks to create a deterrent effect. The
judiciary's interpretations have further strengthened the Act's provisions, ensuring that it
remains relevant in the face of evolving societal dynamics.

Dowry death UNDER BNS.

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called
“dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation
For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Example:
Anita dies from burns in the 4th year of her marriage. It is revealed during investigations that
her husband Vijay and in-laws harassed her for dowry. Vijay and his family will be deemed to
have caused her death and will be punished under this Section.

Key Points in BNS-80

1. Definition of Dowry Death:

 Circumstances: Death of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurring under

abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage.

 Cruelty or Harassment: It must be shown that, shortly before her death, the woman
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relatives.

 Dowry Connection: The cruelty or harassment must be in connection with a demand

for dowry.

2. Legal Definition:

Dowry: Defined as per Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This typically refers to
any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with marriage.

3. Deemed Responsibility:

Presumption: The husband or any relative of the husband is deemed to have caused the death
if the above conditions are met.

4. Punishment:

Imprisonment: The offense of dowry death is punishable with imprisonment for a term of not
less than seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment.
Summary:

BNS-80 defines "dowry death" as the death of a woman caused by burns or injury, or under
suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, if she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment related to dowry demands. Those responsible, including the husband or his
relatives, face imprisonment ranging from seven years to life. The provision aims to address
and penalize deaths resulting from dowry-related abuse.

CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES FOR DOWRY

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called
“dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as
in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Bullet Points on Section 80 BNS:
 A woman’s death caused by burns, bodily injury, or under abnormal circumstances
within seven years of marriage can be classified as a “dowry death.”
 The death must be linked to cruelty or harassment by the woman’s husband or
relatives in connection with dowry demands.
 The term “dowry” carries the same meaning as defined in section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
 Individuals responsible for dowry deaths can be sentenced to a minimum of seven
years in prison, with a possibility of life imprisonment

Cruelty Defined
This is covered under Section 86 of BNS
For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

 Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
  Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.

Landmark Judgements
 In Prakash v. State of Haryana (2004), Supreme Court observed that under Sec
361 of IPC the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial. It
is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its purview. Also, it is not
necessary that taking or enticing must be by force or fraud. Persuasion by accused
creating willingness on part of minor is sufficient to attract this section.
 In State of Haryana v. Raja Ram (1974), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction
of the accused under section 361 of IPC and clarified that taking or enticing a person
out of their lawful guardianship amounts to kidnapping. The Hon’ble Court also
established that the consent must be free and voluntary and any coercion or force
used to obtain such consent would invalidate it.
 In S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965), the Supreme Court noted that ‘taking’
and ‘allowing’ a minor to accompany a person should not be regarded as the same
thing.
 In the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999), the Supreme Court held that the
essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on
each occasion on which the woman was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new
starting point of limitation.
 In the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009), the Supreme Court held
that for holding an accused guilty under Section 498A of IPC, it has to be established
that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in
close proximity of time to the lodging of the complaint and petty quarrels cannot be
termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A of IPC.