Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
On 22 December 2009, after 14 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 ...
Rupan Deol Bajaj was at that time an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (I.A.S) belonging to the Punjab Cadre. She filed a complaint against KPS Gill, saying that he had molested her modesty by patting her posterior during a party hosted on 18 July 1988 at the Chandigarh residence of then Punjab Financial Commissioner, S L Kapoor. [ 2 ]
Capital punishment in India is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha (formerly Indian Penal Code), as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is ...
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (IAST: Bhāratīya Nyāya Saṃhitā; lit. ' Indian Justice Code ') is the official criminal code in India.It came into effect on 1 July 2024 after being passed by the parliament in December 2023 to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the official criminal code in the Republic of India, inherited from British India after independence, until it was repealed and replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in December 2023, which came into effect on 1 July 2024.
However, the IPC could not effectively protect the child due to various loopholes like: [citation needed] IPC 375 does not protect male victims or anyone from sexual acts of penetration other than "traditional" peno-vaginal intercourse. [13] IPC 354 lacks a statutory definition of "modesty". It carries a weak penalty and is a compoundable offence.
The marriage, however, ended in divorce, which is when the accused started contacting the victim again but she rejected him again. The accused then started harassing the victim online. On March 24, 2004, a chargesheet was filed under section 67 of the IT Act 2000, 469 and 509 IPC before the metropolitan magistrate in Egmore, Chennai. [2]