Centuries have come, and centuries have gone, but the plight of women is

not likely to change. Time has helplessly watched women suffering in the
form of discrimination, oppression, exploitation, degradation, aggression,
humiliation. In Indian society, woman occupies a vital position and
venerable place. The Vedas glorified women as the mother, the creator, one
who gives life and worshipped her as a ‘Devi' or Goddess. But their
glorification was rather mythical at the same time, in India women found
themselves totally suppressed and subjugated in a patriarchal society.
Our societies continue to experience crime against women in India despite
the efforts of the government to toughen bills that prosecute men who
attempt to rape women and also criminalise offences like stalking and
voyeurism. From the very beginning of our society women are being
exploited in every nock and corner of the society. Now in recent era of our
country this crime against women are being extended up to the level of
unbearable. The creator of our society are in danger.1
Women is one of the segments of society that is vulnerable to various problems. They are the
victims of a major league of the crimes that occur today. Although, women may be victims of
any of the general crimes such as murder, robbery, cheating, etc, only the crimes which are
directed specifically against women are characterized as ‘crimes against women’. The
semantic meaning of ‘crime against women’ is direct or indirect physical or mental cruelty to
women. These crimes are not only injurious and immoral for the women but for the society as
a whole. We are classifying the crimes against women in to some categories namely:
a. Sexual crimes
b. Matrimonial offences
c. Offences relating to dowry
d. Offences relating to miscarriage
e. Offences relating to trafficking

1
Cited by Justice J.N. Bhatt, “Gender Justice Turmoil or triumph”, Indian Bar Review Vol. XXV (2), 1998, P.18
Sexual harassment at work place
Art.21 is the Magna Carta of Indian Constitution. Right to life enshrined in Art.21
embodies in itself the right to live with dignity2 and State is under a constitutional command
to ensure this right to all citizens.3The right to dignity would include the right against being
subjected to humiliating sexual acts and right against being insulted.4 These rights are
inherent and not conferred.5 Dehumanizing acts of sexual harassment, sexual abuse and flesh
trade are gnawing evils, which is a serious blow to woman’s supreme honour and offends her
self-esteem.6 Every female has basic right to be treated with decency and dignity.7
Vishaka v. State of Rajathan8
The Supreme Court in this case laid down for the first time strictures that aimed at protecting
a woman employee by giving her right to a safe/healthy working environment. In the
decision, the Court also defined sexual harassment and recognised it to be a paramount
violation of human rights. The court thereby laid down certain mandatory and binding
guidelines to be followed by all workplaces, belonging to the public and private sectors and
made it imperative for every employer to ensure a safe, harassment free working environment
for the women. These strictures can be applied to educational institutions as well.
Smt. Manju Lata Gupta v.Union of India Postal Department, through
Secretary/Director General Dak Bhawan and Ors.9
The petitioner was the only female employee in a post office. She was often sexually
harassed by the co-employees. Hence, invoking the Vishaka guidelines she demanded for her
transfer but the response was nil. Because of this, she went on leave. Immediately, the
petitioner was charge sheeted for remaining absent, which she admits that she had to remain
absent, but she had to apply for leave because of the reason that she was unable to work in the
office in such a hostile atmosphere. The view of the Court in this case was, ‘The enquiry has
not been completed as yet. If the authorities in view of the circumstances are still inclined to
continue with the charge sheet, it is expected that the authorities shall take into consideration
all these circumstances. If, ultimately any adverse order is passed against the petitioner she is
at liberty to challenge the same.’
It is pathetic that the Court rather than effecting the Vishaka guidelines let away the culprits
and denied justice to a woman.

ALLEGED ABDUCTION AND MURDER OF BHANWARI DEVI

2
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)3 SCC 161; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)1 SCC 248
and Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar (1983)1 SCC 124
3
Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/1094/2012
4
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997)11 SCC 121
5
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746
6
Bodhisathwa Gautam v. Chandrima Das (2000)2 SCC 465; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)6 SCC 241
7
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh AIR 1999 SC 2378
8
AIR 1997 SC 3011
9
2007(3) WLN 696
Vishaka guidelines are the culmination of Bhanwari Devi’s legal battle against the brutal
gang rape committed against her.10 For her endeavor she was awarded Neerja Bhanot
Memorial Award.11 On January 5, 2012 suspected remains of Bhanwari Devi were found by
CBI officials.12 This clearly implicates that the Court was unable to protect Bhanwari Devi,
the real impetus of Vishaka judgment in spite of delivering mandatory guidelines which had
binding effect all over the nation.

RAPE

When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury but the deep sense of
some deathless shame. Hence judicial response to Human Rights cannot be blunted by legal
bigotry.13 Therefore rape laws in order to be of great deterrence, must have a cooperative
victim, professional investigation, diligent prosecution; and an expeditious trial. For
otherwise it shall not be the law, that fails, but the applicants, the process and application.14
Sec.375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines rape and Sec.376 prescribes punishment for
the same. Later amendments inserted Sections 376A, 376B, 376C and 376D to enhance the
punishment for the offence.

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra15

The prosecution of alleged that Ganpat, the Police Head Constable and Tukaram Police
Constable raped a girl named Mathura in the police station. On 26th of March, 1972, Gama
lodged a report at the police station alleging Mathura had been kidnapped by Nunshi, her
husband Laxman and Ashok. The statements were recorded. By 10:30 p.m. Baburao asked all
the persons to leave. After Baburao left Mathura, Nunshi and Gama and Ashok started to
leave the police station. The appellants, however, asked Mathura to wait and told her
companions to move out. The direction was complied with. Ganpat took Mathura into a
latrine, took off her clothes and stared at her private parts with the aid of a torch. Thereafter,
dragged her to a Chhapri on the back side and raped her. Subsequently, Tukaram fondled
with her private parts but could not rape her because he was in a highly intoxicated condition.
Nunshi, Gama and Ashok who were waiting outside the police station for Mathura grew
suspicious, shouted and attracted a crowd. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged. Trial Court
acquitted the accused whereas High court Convicted them. But the Supreme Court acquitted
10
S V Manohar, B N Kirpal (Aug 1997) "Vishaka & Ors v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August 1997"
(http://www. webcitation.org/6891WS3sS). Supreme Court of India - 241
11
1994, she was awarded the Neerja Bhanot Memorial Award carrying Rs. 1 lakh cash prize, for her
"extraordinary courage, conviction and commitment" - "A Defiant Dalit Woman's Fight for Justice"
(http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1994vol01no01/1935/) PUCL Bulletin Vol. XIV No. 10. People's
Union for Civil Liberties. October 1994.
12
At an isolated spot in Jaloda village, her body was reportedly burnt in a 30-feet-deep pit and her remains
thrown into the Rajiv Gandhi lift canal that runs close by. Police divers found her watch, pieces of burnt bones,
a tooth, a broken locket and a toe ring from the canal where her body was set on fire: http://www.ndtv.com/
article/india/bhanwari-devi-dead-close-missing-case-cbi-tells-court-165411
13
Observation by Krishna Iyer, J. in Rafique’s case [1980 Cr.LJ 1344 SC]
14
Vide Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. UOI (1995) 1 SCC 14
15
AIR 1979 SC 185
the accused in spite of the statements of the victim causing irreparable scars on the face of
womanhood.

DOWRY DEATH
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 elaborates on the offence of Dowry death. It
simply implicates the death of a woman caused by demand for dowry. With reference to
Sec.304B, whoever commits the offence of dowry death shall attract a punishment of
imprisonment for a term not less than seven years and shall extend to imprisonment for life.

Soran Singh v. State16

Mamta was sexually harassed by Soran Singh, her father-in-law. Also Soran Singh and
Mamta’s husband continuously harassed her for demand of dowry. Later on, she committed
suicide. In this case the court held that Appellant Soran Singh shall suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and
shall suffer imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section
498A IPC. Appellant Rakesh shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for
the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and shall suffer imprisonment for a period of
3 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The sentences upon both the
appellants shall run concurrently. The appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of Section
428 Cr.P.C.

16
MANU/DE/0607/2010