Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Of Criminal Force and Assault
Section 354: Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Assaulting or using criminal force on a woman, intending or knowing it likely to outrage her modesty, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for at least one year and up to five years, and a fine.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, [shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine].
State amendments to this section
Chhattisgarh In Section 354 of the Penal Code, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: —
Provided that where offence is committed, under this Section by a relative, guardian or teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the person assaulted, he shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. [Vide Chhattisgarh Act 25 of 2015, sec. 3]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Understanding this section
Section 354 punishes assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, or knowing it is likely to do so. It carries a minimum of one year and up to five years, after the 2013 amendment. The difficult word is modesty, which the Code does not define.
Ingredients
- The victim is a woman.
- The accused assaulted her or used criminal force on her.
- He intended to outrage her modesty, or knew it was likely to be outraged.
What modesty means
The Supreme Court has held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. Modesty is an attribute of women as a class, not something that depends on the individual victim's sense of it. That is why even a very young child can be the victim of this offence.
The accused's mind is decisive
The culpable intention or knowledge of the accused is the crux. The woman's reaction is relevant but not decisive: an act can outrage modesty even if the victim did not fully understand it at the time.
Related offences
The 2013 amendment added sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism) and 354D (stalking). Words, gestures or acts intended to insult modesty, without assault or force, fall under section 509.
Key Supreme Court rulings
Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra 2004 INSC 98
Explained the meaning of a woman's modesty and upheld convictions under sections 342 and 354 read with section 34 where the victim was lured, confined, forcibly disrobed and assaulted.
Madhushree Datta v. The State of Karnataka 2025 INSC 105
Quoting earlier authority: "The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive."
Common mistakes
- Requiring the victim to have felt outraged. The accused's intention or knowledge is decisive.
- Charging section 354 where there was no assault or force; section 509 may apply instead.
Read with: Section 354A IPC, Section 509 IPC, Section 74 BNS
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 354
-
Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.
Issue arose whether the Internal Complaints Committee-ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee…
-
R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others
The High Court directed the appellant to appear before a Hospital for collection of blood samples for DNA profiling. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing.
-
Aasif @ Pasha v. The State of U.P. & Ors.
Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court by which it declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sekh Jamir Hossain and Ors.
The respondents herein were granted bail by the High Court for the offences punishable u/ss.143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427, 326, 376 r/w ss.511 and 34 of IPC, 1860.
-
Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482, CrPC application filed by the appellants despite the matter being civil in nature.
-
Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another
Whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the position of law apropos to the sanction for prosecution, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers u/s.482 of the CrPC to quash the…
-
Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that there were specific allegations in the FIR and Chargesheet even after dropping the charge of Section 376, IPC in order to maintain the criminal proceedings against the…
-
B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another
Whether senior’s admonition can be attributed to mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the means of s.504, Penal Code, 1860.
-
Madhushree Datta v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
Issue arose as to whether, based on the materials on record, prima facie, ingredients of the offences u/ss.323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 IPC are made out; whether the chargesheet and the related criminal proceedings…
-
Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors.
The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all.
-
Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the…
- Anil Kumar Thakur & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Raj Kumar Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Bharti v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Neeta Devi v. State NCT of Delhi Anr
- Sonu v. State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr
- State v. Sanjeev Bhatia
-
Amar Sardar v. The State of West Bengal
Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court.
- State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh Kumar
- Shivam v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- State v. Sachin
- Rahul Srivastav & Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
-
Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s.482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered u/ss.376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC holding, inter alia, that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the society…
- Salauddin & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- N v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Varun Soneja & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Sunil Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
- Sita Devi (Deceased) Thr Lrs v. Tan Singh Rana
- Sita Devi (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors v. Tan Singh Rana @ Tanni
- P v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi )
- Manish Saini v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. & Anr
- Ravinder Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- G K Arora v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Xxx v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Xxxxxx v. State & Ors
- Arbaaz Khan and Ors v. State and Anr
- Yogendra @ Yogendra Pratap Singh and Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
-
Asim Akhtar v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses.
- Kailash Chand & Ors v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Satish Sharma v. State(Gnctd) and Ors
- State v. Manpal & Ors
- Kamal Kishore Sharma & Anr v. State Through Sho Ps Rajouri Garden and Ors
- Aayush Singhal & Ors v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Rekha and Anr v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
-
Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence.
- Jitender Kumar @ Paltu v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Praveen Kumar Kasana & Ors v. The State of (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi) & Anr
- Ranjeet Singh v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- The State of NCT of Delhi v. Shyam Kishore Alias Putan
- State v. Hari Narayan Singh
- Kuldeep Kumar v. State of Delhi NCT & Anr
- Ms. X v. The State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors
- The State (Gnct of Delhi) v. Dharambir Singh
- Ms. Xxxx v. The State & Anr
- Itwari Asur v. State
- Dilip Puri v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors
- Anjali and Other v. Union of India and Others
- Sanjay Malik Alias Sant Sevak Das v. The State of NCT of Dehi and Anr
- Vikas Gautam & Anr v. The State NCT of Delhi
- Prateek & Ors v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Ms. Kt v. Gnct of Delhi & Anr
- Arun Malik v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Saanvi Malu v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Anil Kumar Garg v. The State of N C T of Delhi & Ors
- Renu Bala & Anr v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors
- Riddhi Siddhi Associates v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors
- Praveen Mohammad v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Danish & Ors v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Jatin Rana v. The State of NCT Delhi Anr
- Gulshan Verma v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Nandu Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Anr
- Bablu Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Kartik Rastogi & Anr v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Ashok Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Abhishek Pal and Others v. The State (Nct of Delhi) and Another
- Ravi Shankar Alias Tuntun & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Abhishek Pal and Others v. The State (Nct of Delhi) and Another
- Krishananad Dubey & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Lalit and Ors v. The State (Nct of Delhi), and Anr
- Devpati Devi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Lakshay Jaiswal v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Anr
- Lakshay Jaiswal v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Anr
- The State Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd Anees
- Santoshanand @ Kavitender Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Deepak & Anr v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Piyush Mittal v. The State and Ors
- Sukhjot Singh @ Nav Grover & Ors v. State & Ors
- Hari Ram & Ors v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Deepak @ Faizal & Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Rajan Kumar @ Ashu Chauhan v. State of N.C.T of Delhi
- Babita Jain v. State (Gnct of Delhi)
- Mohd Sakir v. State & Anr
- Khushi Ram @ Happy v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
- Dalbir Singh & Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Manoj Nagpal v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Sonu and Ors v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Prabhat Krishna v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Bijender@Judi Through Pairokar Rani v. The State of NCT of Delhi
- Aditya & Ors v. State Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors
- Veerpal @ Titu v. State