#outraging modesty

Karnataka High Court dismisses petition to quash FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, ruling that mere civil disputes or familial antecedents cannot override the requirement for the FIR to disclose skeletal features of offences. The court emphasizes that if allegations prima facie establish ingredients of criminal offences, quashing is unwarranted, reinforcing the threshold for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the absence of sexual penetration in an outrage of modesty case, even under POCSO and BNS, does not justify continued pre-trial detention after charge sheet filing. This sets a critical precedent for bail eligibility in non-penetrative sexual offences where custody exceeds 40 days and no risk of evidence tampering exists, reinforcing proportionality in bail jurisprudence under the new criminal code.

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to an accused in an outraging modesty case under BNS Section 331(4), emphasizing that the absence of medical corroboration undermines the prosecution's claim, even after charge-sheet filing. This reinforces that pre-trial detention cannot be prolonged solely on unverified allegations, protecting accused persons from indefinite custody without forensic support.

Orissa High Court sets a precedent where medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony led to the acquittal of rape charges, while still upholding conviction under Section 354 IPC for outraging modesty. The ruling underscores the critical weight of forensic proof in sexual offence cases and clarifies the evidentiary standards for atrocities under the SC/ST Act.

Bombay High Court affirms that a conviction under Section 354 IPC can rest solely on the victim’s testimony if it is consistent, credible, and withstands scrutiny. The ruling eliminates the need for corroborative evidence or physical proof, reinforcing victim-centric adjudication in modesty offence cases.