509 ipc

Good Evening sir, Section 509 IPC talks about word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Inorder to constitute an offense under this section a person requires the following essential elements. These are as follows: •Intention to insult the modesty of a woman, •The insult must be caused- 1) by uttering some word, or making some sound, or gesture or exhibiting any object or so as to be heard or seen by such woman, or 2) by intruding upon the privacy of such woman. Hope this solves your query.

can a husbamd be accused under this act for abusing his wife and children?

No. it can not tried against wife and children.

S. 509	Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Descripttion
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine1. 1 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

Originally posted by : Girdhari Lal
	lngridient of 509 ipc with details

 

A Imaginery Fake "Time-Pass" apathetic question, designed to fool & mislead Experts on this Forum.

Hello sir/ma’am

‘Outraging’ the modesty of a women is punishable under 354, Indian Penal Code. When assault or criminal force is used or exercised upon a women with intent to outrage her modesty, an offence is punishable under section 354 is made out. But acts which are done intending to insult the modesty of a women which may not necessarily involve even any physical advances are also brought within the sweep of a separate position viz. section 509, Indian Penal Code. This section is also referred as the Eve teasing section.

Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code

509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Essential ingredients;

• Intention to insult the modesty of the women
• The insult must be caused:

1. By intruding upon the privacy of such women
2. By uttering any word or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such women.

Say for an instance, if a person enters into a woman’s house and tries to catch hold of her and persuades her for s*xual connection or any kind of s*xual favour by removing her clothes, such a person is said to commit an offence under the purview of section 509 Indian Penal Code. 

In Emperor Tarak v. Das Gupta VR [AIR 1926 Bom 159], the accused was a graduate of a university and wrote a letter to an English nurse containing indecent proposals and sent it to her in an envelope. It was held that the accused had outraged her modesty under Section 509 IPC.

For the offence under Section 509, it is sufficient if the intention can be gathered from the evidence. The exact words need not be proved.

If the same words are used at different places in the same enactment, same meaning has to be given to them unless the context indicates otherwise.

If the dictionary meaning of the word ‘modesty’ is adhered to while interpreting Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, the result will be that making an indecent gesture or exhibition of a male organ or some lewd object to a child who has not attained sufficient maturity of thought or understanding would constitute no offence, whereas similar acts when committed in the presence of a woman of higher age would be an offence.

This could not have been the intention of Legislature in enacting Section 509 of the Code. The object of this provision seems to have been to protect women against indecent behaviour of others which is offensive to morality.

Hope this helps

Regards

Krish Mahajan

What are the facts? What is the context?