The p?per is ? comp?rison ?nd ? critic?l ?n?lysis of the r?pe l?ws in Indi? before ?nd ?fter the Crimin?l L?w ?mendment ?ct which not only introduced m?ny new sexu?l offences but ?lso m?de punishments ?nd pen?lties in ?n effort to curb the incre?sing inst?nces of sexu?l offences ?g?inst women in the cities of Indi?. Indi?'s r?pe l?ws h?ve long been ? source of controversy, but ?fter the events surrounding the Delhi r?pe c?se, the topic g?ined momentum ?nd led to signific?nt ch?nges in the country's r?pe l?ws. 1860 s?w the p?ss?ge of the Indi?n pen?l code, which includes r?pe crime provisions. Since then, the situ?tion h?s dr?stic?lly ch?nged due to the heinousness of the offence ?nd the signific?ntly rising number of incidents. R?pe, the most heinous crime, is nonetheless committed shockingly frequently in our society. The situ?tion h?s not improved in the le?st despite the implement?tion of new legisl?tion r?ther, it h?s gotten worse ?s ? result of the r?pid incre?se in c?ses, even though the m?jority of them continue to go unreported due to societ?l pressure. Why r?pe victims continue to be stigm?tised by society ?nd the system is one of the import?nt problems th?t needs to be ?nswered, despite numerous legisl?tive ?dv?ncements. Further, I will ex?mine in this p?per th?t whether the punishments or pen?l provisions ?g?inst r?pe h?s m?de ?ny positive ch?nges in the society or not.

Keywords : rape, sexual assault, criminal law amendment act

The ?nti-R?pe Law is ?nother n?me for the Crimin?l L?w (?mendment) Act, 2013. Following the g?ng r?pe th?t h?ppened in New Delhi on December 16, 2012, the ?ct went into effect on Febru?ry 3, 2013. The occurrence of such ?n incident demonstr?ted the necessity to ?mend the l?ws pert?ining to sexu?l offences ?g?inst women.

In order to give Indi?n women ? sense of protection, the ?ct incorpor?tes both the ?ddition of new provisions ?nd the modific?tion of existing l?ws brought to the IPC. Reg?rding women's security, Indi? is going through ? very difficult time, ?nd reports of r?pes, sexu?l ?ss?ults, ?nd ?cid ?tt?cks ?re incre?sing on ? d?ily b?sis. This doctrinal based rese?rch confirms th?t the number of sexu?l offences is incre?sing. ?ccording to d?t? from the N?tion?l Crime Records Bure?u, crimes h?ve gr?du?lly incre?sed. From (24,923) in 2012 to (31,677) in 2021, ? huge rise of r?pe c?ses h?s occurred ?nd number of r?pe c?ses (38,947) w?s ?t its pe?k in 2016. ¹

I believe there ?re two re?sons for this incre?se. One, there is ? gre?ter underst?nding of the crimes, ?nd ?s ? result, the ide? th?t these crimes should be reported h?s spre?d throughout society. This is cruci?l to note bec?use sexu?l crimes h?ve ?lw?ys h?d ? strong societ?l stigm? in Indi?. This implied th?t the crimes would go unreported since the victims would not report the incident to the ?ppropri?te ?uthorities. The lengthy ?nd ?rduous procedure of getting justice ?lso h?d ? signific?nt imp?ct on the victim's decision not to report the offences. The second f?ctor th?t expl?ins the higher percent?ge is the f?ct th?t there ?re more crimes over?ll.

This m?y ?lso be ?ttributed to insufficient enforcement of existing l?ws, which some m?y ?rgue ?re comprehensive but f?il to provide ?dequ?te deterrence. The rise in crimes ?g?inst women c?n be rel?ted to sociologic?l issues including gender insensitivity ?mong young people, unemployment, ?nd illiter?cy. It is frightening th?t despite widespre?d outcry, crimes ?g?inst women h?ve continued to rise, which r?ises the possibility th?t there is ? serious problem with our judici?l system when it comes to the investig?tion ?nd punishment of these crimes. ?ddition?lly, society needs to become more ?w?re of the suffering of the victims. In our n?tion, it is common to see th?t society does not tre?t r?pe victims well, ?nd some go so f?r ?s to bl?me the victim for the r?pe. Therefore, not only the judici?l system but ?lso society ?s ? whole needs to rethink how it views r?pe ?nd other sexu?l crime victims.

In this p?per I h?ve re?d ? book n?med ‘?nti-R?pe L?ws In Indi?’ edited by Pr?mod Kum?r D?s where the writer discussed the rethinking of r?pe l?ws, the crimin?l ?mendment ?ct, 2013, supreme court guidelines on r?pe ?nd most import?ntly reports of l?w commission of Indi? on r?pe l?ws. I h?ve ?lso re?d the “l?ws rel?ting to r?pe ?nd rel?ted offenses” written by P?R?N DIW?N, where the writer discussed “sexu?l intercourse ?mounting to r?pe” in ? det?iled m?nner.

?p?rt from this, I h?ve gone through the N?tion?l crime records bure?u (NCRB) website from where I h?ve collected v?rious r?pes rel?ted st?tistics or d?t?. I h?ve ?lso visited the website of the n?tion?l commission for women from where I h?ve ?lso gone through NCW reports rel?ting to r?pe. I h?ve re?d v?rious ?rticles such ?s ‘Sexu?l violence in Indi?: ?ddressing g?ps between policy ?nd implement?tion’ by Pr?chi Sh?rm?, Critic?l ?n?lysis of Crimin?l L?w ?mendment ?ct, 2013, p?per written by ?nkur P?ndey & Surbhi ; Comp?rison ?nd critic?l ?n?lysis on r?pe l?ws in Indi?, before ?nd ?fter crimin?l ?mendment ?ct, 2013 by R?jeev R?nj?n.

The new r?pe l?ws h?s not brought ?ny positive ch?nge in r?pe c?ses ?g?inst women in Indi? and the l?ws ?re gender-bi?sed.

The new r?pe l?ws ?re gender bi?sed ?nd is not enough to enh?nce women’s s?fety.

The rese?rch method which h?s been used to complete this rese?rch work is Doctrin?l Rese?rch Method.

R?pe l?ws h?ve seen numerous tr?nsitions before re?ching the present form through the crimin?l l?w ?mendment of 2013, which w?s brought through ?s ?n ordin?nce ?s the p?rli?ment w?s not in session. This ?mendment w?s brought ?fter ? n?tionwide outr?ge ?g?inst the brut?l r?pe of ? physiother?pist student in Delhi (Nirbh?y? C?se).

Section 375 of the Indi?n Pen?l Code defines R?pe. In common p?rl?nce r?pe is described ?s sexu?l intercourse with ? wom?n without her consent by force, fe?r or fr?ud. Section 275 h?s seen ?n ?mendment in the ye?r 1983, which overh?uled the definition of r?pe ?nd ?lso m?de ch?nges to the punishments th?t were stipul?ted under the section 376. This w?s m?de through the Crimin?l L?w (?mendment) ?ct of 1983. Interestingly this ?mendment w?s ?lso brought ?bout due to the widespre?d criticism of ? judgment in the c?se of “Tuk?r?m v St?te of M?h?r?shtr?”² , In this c?se the tri?l court h?d pronounced the ?ccused ?s not guilty which w?s b?sed on the concept th?t the victim h?d given t?cit consent to the ?ct. It w?s ?lso observed th?t the girl w?s of promiscuous ch?r?cter which w?s used ?s re?soning for the t?cit consent. This w?s overturned by the Bomb?y High Court which rightly pointed out th?t there w?s ? huge difference between consent ?nd p?ssive submission. It w?s very correct in its observ?tion th?t mere surrender to ?nother person’s lust should not be t?ken ?s consent. This w?s upturned by the Supreme Court who ?cquitted ?ll the ?ccused. This judgment w?s criticised widely by the civil society. The r?mific?tions of the c?se were seen in the ?mendments th?t were brought ?bout in the IPC ?nd the Indi?n Evidence ?ct. Section 376 ? to D were ?dded to the IPC ?nd section 114? w?s introduced in the Indi?n Evidence ?ct.

To ?n?lyse the l?ws before the crimin?l l?w ?mendment ?ct 2013 it is import?nt to know how the sections h?ve defined r?pe ?nd the punishments ?ssoci?ted with it. The crux of the definition of r?pe in section 375 IPC before the ?mendment of 2013 is th?t r?pe involves coercive non- consensu?l sexu?l intercourse between ? m?n ?nd ? wom?n. There ?re six circumst?nces th?t c?n be s?id to be the constituents of r?pe. The prim?ry condition necess?ry for r?pe to be committed is th?t there must be the commission of sexu?l intercourse between the m?n ?nd the wom?n. It is widely believed th?t r?pe c?n only be committed if the sexu?l intercourse h?s been done without the consent of the victim, but this is not ?lw?ys the c?se, r?pe c?n be committed even ?fter consent h?s been obt?ined if the ?ge of the wom?n is below the ?ge of sixteen ye?rs. On ? closer look ?t the circumst?nces required for the commission of r?pe it c?n be bro?dly divided into three p?rts. The first two cl?uses reve?l th?t they de?l with sexu?l intercourse with ? wom?n ‘?g?inst her will’ ?nd ‘without her consent’. This me?ns th?t the wom?n is consciously c?p?ble of giving or not giving consent to the ?ct. The next two cl?uses de?l with the wom?n giving her consent due to coercion th?t is by putting her or ?ny of her f?mily member to thre?t of hurt or grievous h?rm ?nd it ?lso de?ls when the consent is obt?ined through misconception. The l?st two cl?uses de?ls with the situ?tion when the consensu?l sex with under?ge fem?le person t?kes pl?ce.

The Crimin?l L?w ?mendment ?ct of 2013 w?s brought into effect ?fter the horrific Delhi G?ng R?pe c?se which shocked the whole n?tion with the brut?lity of the ?ct committed. Widespre?d protests ?nd ?git?tions forced the legisl?ture to contempl?te the ch?nging of the prev?lent r?pe l?ws. The b?sic ide? w?s to m?ke them more stringent ?nd introduce h?rsher punishments besides bro?dening the ?mbit ?nd definition of the term r?pe.

The well-known "Justice Verm? Committee," which w?s est?blished to g?ther ide?s ?nd m?ke recommend?tions for the legisl?ture to p?ss legisl?tion to comb?t r?pe ?nd other crimes ?g?inst women, w?s m?de up of the l?te Justice J.S. Verm?, Gop?l Subr?m?ni?m, ?nd former Justice Leil? Seth. The technic?l committee w?s so pro?ctive in its work th?t during the brief time it existed, it received up to 80,000 propos?ls, which were then discussed. These recommend?tions c?me from ? r?nge of ?ctivists, ?ttorneys, NGOs, ?nd other figures from the so-c?lled "civil society." The committee's recommend?tions were introduced through ?n ordin?nce bec?use the legisl?ture w?s not in session bec?use it h?d been c?lled to ?djourn. The crime of r?pe h?s since been ch?nged or given ? more inclusive definition th?t covers ?ny type of penetr?tion in ?ddition to ?ny ?re? of the victim's body. The most signific?nt ?lter?tion w?s m?de here since section 375 of the IPC previously exclusively defined penile v?gin?l penetr?tion ?s r?pe. The most effective method for exp?nding the definition of r?pe, which w?s previously dem?nded b?sed on the recommend?tions of the Fifth L?w Commission Report, w?s the ?ddition in the new recommend?tions th?t ?ny penetr?tion would be considered ?s r?pe. ?ddition?lly, registering compl?ints ?nd getting ? physic?l were included. The report c?tegoric?lly mentioned, “?ny officer, who f?ils to register ? c?se of r?pe reported to him, or ?ttempts to ?bort its investig?tion, commits ?n offence which sh?ll be punish?ble ?s prescribed”

The committee m?de numerous recommend?tions for preventing both m?rit?l r?pe ?nd r?pes c?rried out in the context of inv?lid m?rri?ges. This w?s cruci?l bec?use, in my opinion, m?rit?l r?pe is ? leg?l loophole since it is so overt ?nd obvious. Legisl?tion not being m?de on the subject is ? m?tter th?t is not p?rticul?rly obscure. Since everyone is ?w?re of it ?nd efforts to put it under the definition of r?pe h?ve only l?tely st?rted, this is why it is such ? cruci?l issue. In order to give leg?l s?nctity ?nd solemnise m?rri?ge, the committee mentioned m?nd?tory registr?tion of m?rri?ges in order to include this f?ct ?nd observ?tion. The Code of Crimin?l Procedure ?lso underwent ? simil?r overh?uling ?ttributed to the new l?w ?nd h?d previously

gone through the s?me process ?fter the judgment in the Supreme Court decision in the Gurmit Singh C?se.

It goes without s?ying th?t the l?ws now ?re r?dic?lly different from wh?t they were in the p?st. ?s new v?lues ?nd technologies emerge, societ?l perspectives occ?sion?lly ch?nge. It is only re?son?ble th?t rules th?t ?re so import?nt in governing the l?w ?nd order th?t prev?ils in society occ?sion?lly ?lter ?s well. This is cruci?l to comb?ting the recent emergence of new sorts of crimes, such ?s cybercrimes, which involve d?t? theft, h?r?ssment, inv?sion of priv?cy, ?nd m?ny other things. The m?jor r?pe ?nd sexu?l ?ss?ult c?ses such ?s the ‘Shopi?n R?pe C?se, the ?run? Sh?nb?ug C?se, Nirbh?y? R?pe C?se, Priy? P?tel, the M?thur? R?pe C?se, etc. ?ll h?ve h?d ?n effect on the functioning of r?pe l?ws ?nd their interpret?tions ?s well ?s reform?tions. R?pe w?s included in the Indi?n Pen?l Code, 1860 in its origin?l form since 1924.

The 2013 Crimin?l L?w (?mendment) Ordin?nce w?s repl?ced by the 2013 Crimin?l L?w (?mendment) ?ct. The Indi?n IPC & CrPC ?s well ?s the Indi?n Evidence ?ct were to be ?mended by the ?ct. ?s thre?ts to people's priv?cy incre?sed ?cross the n?tion, it w?s time to ?dd some new crimes to the Indi?n Pen?l Code to keep up with modern society. Voyeurism, which is defined ?s ? m?n who w?tches, or c?ptures the im?ge of ? wom?n eng?ging in ? priv?te ?ct in circumst?nces where she would usu?lly h?ve the expect?tion of not being observed either by the perpetr?tor or by ?ny other person ?t the behest of the perpetr?tor or dissemin?tes such im?ge sh?ll be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for ? term which sh?ll not be less th?n one ye?r, but which m?y extend to three ye?rs, ?nd sh?ll ?lso be li?ble to fine, ?nd be punished on ? second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for ? term which sh?ll not be less th?n three ye?rs, but which m?y extend to seven ye?rs, ?nd sh?ll ?lso be li?ble to fine.⁴ ? ‘voyeur’ is defined ?s “? person who derives sexu?l gr?tific?tion from the covert observ?tion of others ?s they undress or eng?ge in sexu?l ?ctivities.”⁵ Voyeurism is ? crimin?l ?ct which cre?tes ?pprehension for society ?nd is infringement of expect?tions of priv?cy th?t ?ll citizens h?ve ?bout their body which they do not wish to expose it to others.

The inclusion of voyeurism ?s ? crime under the Indi?n Pen?l Code h?s m?de s?le of pornogr?phy, inv?sion of priv?cy ?nd ?ll forms of s?le of def?m?tory pictures ?s prohibited ?nd this h?s resulted in ?pprehension in minds of crimin?ls.

Punishment for r?pe : 7 ye?rs to life imprisonment ?nd fine.

R?pe resulting in de?th or veget?tive st?te : R?pe ?nd murder de?lt with ?s two sep?r?te offences. R?pe: 7 ye?rs to life imprisonment, Murder: imprisonment for life or de?th, IPC, 1860.

Punishment for g?ng r?pe : 10 ye?rs to life imprisonment ?nd fine, IPC, 1860.

R?pe by ?rmed personnel : No specific provision. Public serv?nts include ?rmed personnel. Punishment: 10 ye?rs to life imprisonment ?nd fine, IPC, 1860.

Other forms of r?pe : In the ?bsence of penile-v?gin?l penetr?tion offence of outr?ging the modesty of ? wom?n punish?ble with m?ximum 2 ye?rs ?nd fine, IPC, 1860.

Presumption of consent : Shifts the onus on to the ?ccused to prove th?t consent w?s given.

Punishment for r?pe : 10 ye?rs to life imprisonment ?nd fine.

R?pe resulting in de?th or veget?tive st?te : Punishment 20 ye?rs to life imprisonment (rigorous imprisonment) or de?th.

Punishment for g?ng r?pe : 20 ye?rs to life imprisonment (rigorous imprisonment) ?nd fine p?y?ble to the victim, th?t is re?son?ble to meet medic?l expenses.

R?pe by ?rmed personnel : Sh?ll be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for ? term which sh?ll not be less th?n seven ye?rs, but which m?y extend to imprisonment for life.

Other forms of r?pe : Punish?ble with 7 ye?rs to life imprisonment (rigorous imprisonment). Presumption of consent : Shifts the onus on to the ?ccused to prove th?t consent w?s given.

The much-needed reform in how evidence is presented in ? court of l?w is ?nother signific?nt dep?rture from e?rlier legisl?tion. In response to the M?thur? r?pe c?se, Section 114? of the Indi?n Evidence ?ct w?s ?mended. This w?s done to m?int?in th?t, despite the women's l?ck of consent, ch?r?cter ?ss?ssin?tion of the women during court proceedings occurred frequently, which w?s regrett?ble. ?s ? result, e?rlier l?ws were ch?nged, ?nd Section 53? of the Indi?n Evidence ?ct w?s introduced. This section m?kes it cle?r th?t in c?ses of sexu?l ?ss?ult or r?pe, the victim's p?st sexu?l experiences, or even her "ch?r?cter," c?nnot be used ?s evidence in court. Nevertheless, it is regrett?ble th?t the victim's reput?tion is still being ?tt?cked in society, ?dding to the victim's suffering.

The evidence ?bout consent in r?pe or sexu?l ?ss?ult c?ses is frequently b?sed on the wom?n's prior beh?viour, which seems f?irly trivi?l considering th?t ?t the time of the ?buse, she m?y not h?ve consented, constituting the crimin?l ?ct. The victim's prior sexu?l experience ?nd "promiscuous n?ture" would ?lw?ys c?st doubt on the proceedings ?nd est?blish ? bi?s in the judici?ry's thinking, so prostitutes could be r?ped in the p?st without fe?r of their rights being s?fegu?rded. This ?mendment w?s only included in order to protect the victim's sexu?l history from inv?sion of priv?cy by preventing the use of it ?s evidence in court. Therefore, members of the civil society shouldn't encour?ge unjustified intrusion into the victim's person?l sp?ce. The new l?w protected women's rights to live in dignity ?nd ?g?inst gender-b?sed sexism.

L?st but not le?st, ?nd perh?ps most signific?ntly, ? new definition of r?pe w?s included in the upd?ted l?w, ?s well ?s the introduction of sexu?l h?r?ssment ?t work (under section 354 of the IPC in ?ddition to the Sexu?l H?r?ssment ?t Workpl?ce ?ct, 2013).

The prior st?tute h?d emph?sised compulsion ?nd the thre?t of the victim's loved ones being killed or injured ?s ex?mples of force being used or ? l?ck of consent when r?pe w?s committed. The form?tion of sh?m m?rri?ges is ?nother inst?nce of lying th?t led to the ?ct of r?pe.

These ?re the terms th?t  h?ve undergone the most comprehensive ch?nge in the recent ?mendment of 2013. Before the ?mendment of 2013, sexu?l intercourse w?s t?ken to me?n the penetr?tion of the m?le genit?l org?n into the fem?le genit?l org?n only. The courts interpreted the term sexu?l intercourse ?s “mere slightest or p?rti?l penetr?tion of the m?le org?n within the l?bi? m?jor? or the vulv? or pudend? is sufficient to constitute ‘sexu?l intercourse”. The courts h?ve stressed on the f?ct th?t the depth of the penetr?tion is imm?teri?l. It is ?lso l?id down th?t there is no requirement for injuries to be present on the priv?te p?rt of the wom?n to constitute r?pe. The hymen need not be ruptured. Thus the essenti?l condition of r?pe is penetr?tion ?nd not ej?cul?tion. Ej?cul?tion without penetr?tion will constitute ?s ?n ?ttempt to

r?pe ?nd not r?pe ?ctu?lly. These conditions were expressly mentioned by the Supreme Court in the c?se of “St?te of Utt?r Pr?desh v B?buln?th”⁶. The court in this c?se while delving into the essenti?l ingredients of r?pe m?de the observ?tion th?t “To constitute the offence of r?pe it is not ?t ?ll necess?ry th?t there should be complete penetr?tion of the m?le org?n with the emission of semen ?nd rupture of hymen. Even P?rti?l or slightest penetr?tion of the m?le org?n within the l?bi? m?jor? or the vulv? or pudend? with or without ?ny emission of semen or even ?n ?ttempt ?t penetr?tion into the priv?te p?rt of the victim would be quite enough for the purposes of section 375 ?nd 376 of the Indi?n Pen?l Code. Th?t being so it is quite possible to commit leg?lly the offence of r?pe even without c?using ?ny injury to the genit?ls or le?ving ?ny semin?l st?in”. ?n import?nt issue of widening the ?mbit of section 375 to include the ?ny bodily penetr?tion ?s r?pe w?s r?ised in the c?se of Smt Sudesh Jh?ku v KCJ & Ors.⁷ The petitioners w?nted to incre?se the ?mbit of the definition to include penetr?tion of ?ny m?le body p?rt into ?ny orifice in the wom?n’s body. This however w?s rejected by the court which w?s not in f?vour of tinkering with the existing definition of the term. The court s?id th?t it w?s necess?ry to prevent ch?os ?nd confusion in the society with reg?rd to the ch?nged definition of r?pe ?nd hence Section 375 should not be ?ltered.

It is ?lso import?nt to note th?t there is ?lso ?n exception to section 375. The exception is known ?s M?rit?l R?pe. M?rit?l R?pe is defined ?s non-consensu?l sex with wife who is over the ?ge of 15 ye?rs. The crux of the ?rgument is th?t ?ny coercive or non-consensu?l sex with ? wife over the ?ge the ?ge of 15 ye?rs will not be considered ?s r?pe within the purview of section 375. The immunity of the husb?nd from getting convicted for m?rit?l r?pe ?rises from the ?ssumption th?t ?fter m?rri?ge husb?nd gets ? lifelong consent for sexu?l intercourse with his wife. This is ? very problem?tic situ?tion ?ccording to me bec?use this is in contr?vention to the st?tute th?t st?tes th?t the minimum ?ge for m?rri?ge of ? wom?n should be 18 ye?rs. So if th?t is the c?se ? m?n c?nnot m?rry ? wife who is of 15 ye?rs of ?ge. I ?lso don’t ?gree with the f?ct th?t M?rit?l R?pe is not considered to be r?pe bec?use I don’t ?gree with the concept of lifelong consent to sexu?l intercourse just bec?use ? couple is m?rried.

?s per the ?bove discussion, R?pe c?n be described ?s unl?wful sexu?l intercourse with ? person. By the term “unl?wful”, it is me?nt th?t the sexu?l intercourse w?s forced upon ? person thereby me?ns th?t there w?s no consent by either of the p?rties ?nd one h?s forced himself/herself on the other p?rty. ?lso, the gender of the victim isn't outlined in the definition thereby st?ting th?t ?nyone of ?ny gender will be thought of ?s ? victim if he/she h?s been forced to unl?wful sexu?l issues. However, our Indi?n Pen?l Cody only recognises the r?pe victims to be fem?les. How c?n we s?y th?t only fem?les c?n be r?ped? If r?pe is decl?red by checking whether there w?s consent by the other p?rty then how c?n we s?y th?t m?les ?re not subjected to r?pe? These ?nti-r?pe l?ws ?re tot?lly dependent upon consent or will but the l?ws ?re discrimin?ting between m?les ?nd fem?les? In my opinion, it is the p?tri?rch?l thinking of the society which is behind ?ll of this discrimin?tion. No one needs to believe th?t men c?n be r?ped too ?s ?ccording to them; m?les ?re stronger ?nd powerful th?n women. M?les ?re tre?ted superior ?nd their m?sculinity is the only re?son why it is believed th?t they c?nnot get r?ped. Bec?use of this, m?le victims ?re f?iled to get ?ny ?ttention. Section 375 st?rts with “? m?n” which st?tes th?t ?nti-r?pe provisions ?re me?nt for prosecuting m?les only. The provisions ?re fem?les bi?sed which c?n be cle?rly seen in cl?uses (?), (b), (c) ?nd, (d). There ?re no provisions provided for m?le victims. R?pe being ? very sensitive issue ?nd ? very heinous crime c?n spoil the life of the victim in one go, irrespective of the gender of the victim. It’s high time now th?t the r?pe-l?ws sh?ll be m?de gender-neutr?l. The toll of fem?les being r?ped is very high th?n m?les being r?ped ?nd the provisions h?ve helped ? lot of women to seek justice if they h?ve been r?ped ?s we c?n see in the c?se of Jyoti Singh, ? 23 ye?rs girl who w?s g?ng-r?ped in the ye?r 2012 in ? moving bus. The brut?lity of the r?pe w?s so severe th?t the r?pists r?ped her, inserted ? rod inside her v?gin?, took her intestines out, ?nd then threw her out from the moving bus ?fter which she died while b?ttling in the S?fdurjung Hospit?l, Delhi. ?fter ?lmost 8 ye?rs of struggle, the r?pists of Nirbh?y? got h?nged ?fter the judgments of the Supreme Court. This c?se bec?me ? turning point in the r?pe l?ws of Indi? by forcing the leg?l system to reconsider the existing provisions ?nd introduce some other provisions like ?cid ?tt?cks, st?lking ?nd, voyeurism. The r?pe provisions got ?mended but wh?t h?s not been ch?nged is the p?tri?rch?l thinking of the society. If ? m?le is being r?ped, he c?n seek justice under section 377 ?nd cl?im d?m?ges under Section 322 ?nd the victor would be punished under sec 325. M?le victims c?n seek justice under section 377 which uses the phr?se “volunt?ry c?rn?l intercourse ?g?inst the

order of n?ture” ?nd neither includes consenting or non-consenting ?nd nor does it st?tes whether sodomy is considered ?s ?ctu?l r?pe. This section only st?tes th?t if in c?se penetr?tion is done then only it will be constituted ?s c?rn?l intercourse.

Victims subjected to non-penile viol?tions c?nnot seek relief under this provision. The point ?rises, ?re the m?les ?lw?ys perpetr?tors? In our society, the thinking of the people is th?t only fem?les ?re r?ped or ?re subjected to sexu?l h?r?ssment. If ? m?le is r?ped, both the victim ?nd the victor deny the f?ct bec?use m?les ?re considered to be strong. Bec?use of their m?sculinity they c?nnot get r?ped. One such c?se w?s when ? boy c?lled J?m?l Uddin from the Telih?ti Tepirb?ri vill?ge of Sreepur Up?zil? in G?zipur, who on ?ugust 19 committed suicide ?fter ? group of men ?llegedly g?ng-r?ped him, recorded the foot?ge of the incident, dem?nded ? p?yoff, ?nd l?ter thre?tened to spre?d the video on soci?l medi?, ? mortified J?m?l killed himself ultim?tely. His rel?tives s?id th?t he did so to ?void sh?me ?nd dishonour.⁸ These men h?ve not been punished with the right ?mount of punishment for the crime they h?ve done. They h?ve committed r?pe, crimin?l intimid?tion, ?ttempt to murder, provoking suicide, committing crime under Pornogr?phy Control ?ct, ?nd extortion. The victim side c?n seek relief under sec 503, 307,309. But they c?nnot seek relief neither under 375 nor under 376D? (punishment for g?ng r?pe) bec?use the l?ws ?re exclusively m?de for women. In the ye?r 2019, ? third-gr?de boy w?s mistre?ted by his te?cher in Feni, ?nd in R?j?sth?n, ? te?cher w?s ?lleged for the ch?rges of sodomy ?g?inst his m?le student.⁹

In both c?ses, the f?milies were hesit?nt to report ?s m?les getting sexu?lly h?r?ssed is not wh?t the society thinks c?n h?ppen. It is considered th?t r?pe ?nd sexu?l offenses ?re women’s issues ?nd m?les c?n never be subject to such offenses. The definition of r?pe in our society h?s been restricted to women ?lone ?nd ?lso under the Indi?n judici?ry. Is it f?ir? In my opinion, it is infringing ?rticle 15(1) of the Indi?n Constitution. L?ws sh?ll be gender-neutr?l. They sh?ll help to deliver justice to everyone. Then why only one p?rt of the society is getting to t?ke ?dv?nt?ge of the r?pe l?ws ?lone. ?ccording to ?rticle 15 (1) of the Constitution of Indi?, 1950, which st?tes th?t the “st?te sh?ll not discrimin?te ?g?inst ?ny citizen on grounds only of

religion, r?ce, c?ste, sex, pl?ce of birth or ?ny of them”¹⁰. This ?rticle cle?rly st?tes th?t there sh?ll not be ?ny discrimin?tion between the citizens of Indi? b?sed on sex then why ?re the r?pe provisions being only subjected to fem?les. These ?nti-r?pe l?ws cle?rly infringe ?rticle 15 of the Indi?n Constitution. R?pe provisions sh?ll be m?de gender-neutr?l. They sh?ll ?pply to every citizen of the country. Every citizen sh?ll h?ve this ?uthority to seek justice under section 375 in c?se he/she h?s been subjected to r?pe. ?rticle 14 st?tes th?t "The St?te sh?ll not deny to ?ny person equ?lity before the l?w or the equ?l protection of the l?ws within the territory of Indi?."¹¹. ?re these ?nti-r?pe l?ws in contr?st with the ?rticle 14? No, they ?re not. ?nti-r?pe l?ws h?ve been m?de for women only. It is str?ight ?w?y infringing ?rticle 14. Thus, these ?nti-r?pe l?ws sh?ll be reconsidered ?nd sh?ll be m?de gender neutr?l. They sh?ll help everyone to seek justice in c?se their fund?ment?l rights h?ve been infringed. The l?ws sh?ll not be subjected to fem?le victims ?lone but ?lso be ?pplic?ble for m?le victims ?s well. ?lso, the p?tri?rch?l thinking of the people th?t m?les ?re strong ?nd they c?nnot victimize such offenses sh?ll be ch?nged. ? hope will ?rise in c?se r?pe provisions ?re m?de gender-neutr?l ?nd m?le victims coming forw?rd ?nd reporting the crime they h?ve been subjected to ?s m?ny such victims ?re still unknown bec?use they h?ve f?iled to report such crime under peer pressure. Fem?le r?pe is underreported ?nd m?le r?pes ?re r?rely reported.

R?pe is ? crime th?t c?n be committed ?g?inst ?ny gender, including men, women, homosexu?ls, ?nd tr?nsgender people, reg?rdless of their ?ge, gender, or sexu?l orient?tion. However, in recent ye?rs, it h?s become cle?r th?t r?pe is ? crime th?t c?n be committed ?g?inst ?ny gender, including men, women, homosexu?ls, ?nd tr?nsgender people, reg?rdless of their ?ge, gender, ?nd sexu?l ?ttitude. Bec?use there is no l?w in Indi? protecting those who ?re not fem?les from such crimes, most c?ses of r?pe involving ?nyone other th?n women go undetected.

Therefore, it must be ?cknowledged th?t both the r?pe victim ?nd the r?pist might be of ?ny gender. ?ddition?lly, the government must provide legisl?tion to gu?r?ntee them equ?l protection from such sexu?l offences.

10 . P?ndey, J. N., & Sriv?st?v?, S. S. (2003). Constitution?l l?w of Indi? (Vol. 5, No. 0). Centr?l L?w ?gency

Glob?lly, 77 n?tions h?ve en?cted gender-neutr?l l?ws ?g?inst sexu?l offenses. ?mong the n?tions with gener?lly neutr?l l?ws ?re the United St?tes, the United Kingdom, ?nd ?ustr?li?.

The M?THUR? R?PE C?SE refers to the l?ndm?rk decision Tuk?r?m v. St?te of M?h?r?shtr?. This is ? c?se th?t merits discussion from the st?ndpoint of soci?l tr?nsform?tion bec?use it w?s the first to ?rouse widespre?d indign?tion ?nd bec?use ch?nges to the legisl?tion were implemented ?s ? result of the upro?r. In one inst?nce, ? 16-ye?r-old girl from the M?thur? tribe w?s sexu?lly ?ss?ulted in ? police st?tion. Following th?t, the M?thur? f?mily filed ? crimin?l compl?int ?g?inst the two police officers. However, the Indi?n Supreme Court dismissed this c?se ?nd provided ? justific?tion. There w?s ? st?tement th?t the c?se w?s dismissed since "M?thur?'s body bore “M?thur?’s body bore no outw?rds sign of r?pe”. This judgement le?ds to ? huge movement by m?ny women groups ?ll over the n?tion. ?fter this huge protest four eminent l?w professors wrote ?n open compl?int letter to the Chief Justice of Indi? opposing this judgement. ?fter this entire incident ?n ?mendment h?s been m?de in crimin?l l?w in 1983. So ?fter the M?thur? R?pe C?se, the Crimin?l L?w ?mendment, 1983 h?s been m?de. The m?in fe?tures of the crimin?l l?w ?mendment, 1983 ?re:

?nother well-known c?se in this reg?rd is S?kshi v. Union of Indi?. To redefine the term "r?pe," ?n NGO by the n?me of S?kshi filed ? Public Interest Litig?tion. The Indi?n Supreme Court ordered the l?w commission in this c?se to ?ddress the p?rticul?r concern highlighted in the petition. ?fter numerous meetings ?nd discussions with S?kshi, the Indi?n L?w Commission issued its 172 reports on the revision of r?pe l?w in 2000. The following list summ?rises the 172 L?w Commission report:

mor?l ch?r?cter of the r?pe victim ?lso ?ny types of question which is ?bout the previous sexu?l experience of the victims. ?fter the Delhi g?ng r?pe c?se in December 2012 Indi? h?s experienced the power of the gener?l m?ss. People ?re st?rting to protest ?g?inst this occurrence ?ll throughout Indi?. They fight for justice, they fight for new legisl?tion, but most of ?ll, they fight for ? s?fe, r?pe-free society. Though soci?l tr?nsform?tion is ? very sep?r?te issue from ch?nging the legisl?tion. The words "tr?nsform?tion" liter?lly tr?nsl?te ?s "inspir?tion, cre?tivity, ?nd proper implement?tion." It's import?nt to remember th?t the N?tion?l Commission for Women ?ct w?s p?ssed by p?rli?ment in 1990 for this re?son. ?fter two ye?rs, the p?nel w?s cre?ted in 1992. Since then, the r?pe st?tute h?s undergone numerous critic?l revisions th?t the n?tion?l commission for women h?s ?dvoc?ted ?nd ?dvised in order to enh?nce its effectiveness. However, this topic is never given re?l consider?tion by P?rli?ment. If we look ?t the st?tistics, we c?n see th?t the field of fin?nce l?w h?s undergone numerous ch?nges over the l?st ten ye?rs. However, the p?rli?ment h?s consistently ignored the issue of women. bec?use there h?ven't been m?ny ?dv?ncements in women's issues during the p?st 150 ye?rs. This st?tistic demonstr?ted th?t P?rli?ment does not t?ke the issue of women's issues seriously or sensitively enough. The c?use is likely our ingr?ined ment?lities, which le?d us to believe th?t r?pe is ? problem prim?rily ?ffecting women. R?pe, however, is never ? fem?le issue. It is the fl?w in our culture ?nd ? source of gre?t sh?me. There ?re ? cert?in number of reserved se?ts for women in the p?rli?ment, however there h?ve only been ? sm?ll number of ?mendments to l?ws rel?ting to women. Therefore, even though ? cert?in percent?ge of se?ts in P?rli?ment ?re reserved for women, ? set ?mount of time should be set ?side for discussions ?nd deb?tes ?bout issues rel?ting to women, such ?s the strengthening of r?pe legisl?tion. Only then would it be benefici?l to our society.

On ?n ?ver?ge, 88 r?pes t?ke pl?ce every d?y in Indi?, ?ccording to the N?tion?l Crime Records Bure?u (NCRB) d?t? for 2019.

However, the conviction r?te is ?s low ?s 27.8%. This me?ns, out of 100 ?ccused, only 28 gets convicted.

The NCRB d?t? reve?l the r?te of crimes ?g?inst women incre?sed from 58.8 in 2018 to 62.4 in 2019.

There were 32,033 incidents of r?pe ?nd the crime r?te for r?pe w?s the highest in R?j?sth?n, where 5,997 r?pes were reported in 2019.

Utt?r Pr?desh reported 3,065 incidents, followed by M?dhy? Pr?desh ?t 2,485, M?h?r?shtr? 2,299 ?nd Ker?l? 2,023. Delhi reported 1,253 r?pe c?ses in 2019.¹²

One of the common re?sons why crimin?ls don’t get punished is the poor police investig?tion. Re?sons such ?s hostility of witnesses ?nd compl?in?nts ?nd the f?mili?l pressure on the victim ?lso pl?y ? role.

The NCRB figures ?ssume signific?nce ?s it ?lso shows th?t in m?ny c?ses, victims don’t ?ppro?ch the police compl?ining ?bout the r?pe or sexu?l ?ss?ult.

Expressing concern over the low conviction r?te, even the Supreme Court h?d observed th?t 90% of r?pe c?ses end in ?cquitt?l.

In J?nu?ry 2018, ?n 8-ye?r-old girl n?med ?sif? B?no w?s kidn?pped from her vill?ge ?nd w?s r?ped continuously for 3 d?ys, ?fter 3rd d?y the girl murdered in the district of K?thu? in J?mmu ?nd K?shmir. The m?in ?ccused w?s S?njhi R?m who w?s the priest of the temple ?long with his son ?nd nephew who were juveniles, were ?lso ?ccused. This c?se led to n?tion?l ?ggression especi?lly bec?use the m?tter w?s rel?ted to ? child ?nd ?lso bec?use the incident took pl?ce inside the temple by the priest of the temple. This incident pressurized the government to m?ke the immedi?te policy ch?nge in the Indi? Leg?l System. Sever?l st?te ?ssemblies such ?s M?dhy? Pr?desh, H?ry?n?, R?j?sth?n, ?nd ?run?ch?l Pr?desh p?ssed the ?nti-r?pe l?ws for committing r?pe of minor girls ?fter the K?thu? r?pe ?nd Unn?o r?pe c?se incidents. Following this, the President of Indi? g?ve ?ssent to The Crimin?l l?w ?mendment ?ct, 2018 on 21st ?pril, 2018. This brought ?mendments in four m?jor ?cts of the Crimin?l L?w th?t ?re ?s follows:-

At the end, I would like to conclude from the study ?bove th?t l?w is me?ningless without correct implic?tion. For this re?son, police reforms ?re cruci?l in putting ?n end to violence ?g?inst women. Police reforms ?re ?lso required since, in the m?jority of c?ses, when ? r?pe victim goes to the police st?tion to register ? FIR, the police frequently question them in ?n ?ggressive m?nner. Therefore, their mindset needs to be ?ltered, ?nd they need to receive the right instruction on how to h?ndle these kinds of delic?te situ?tions. Boys should ?lso need educ?tion st?rting in the element?ry gr?des. It is import?nt to educ?te them on how to respect women. The most import?nt thing to do in order to er?dic?te r?pe from our society in the future is to elimin?te gender bi?s. Nevertheless, we should spe?k up whenever we see ?n injustice committed ?g?inst women bec?use we ?re the society, we ?re the power, ?nd ?s we h?ve seen in the p?st, we c?n ch?nge the world through our voices.

The l?w needs to get upd?ted with the ch?nges in society. Even Indi?n Pen?l Code does not recognize M?rit?l r?pe ?s ? crime, even in the l?test Crimin?l ?mendment ?ct of 2013 it did not m?ke ?ny provision rel?ted to it. L?w pre-?ssumes th?t in m?rri?ge, the wife h?s consented to ?ll kinds of m?trimoni?l oblig?tions to her husb?nd including sexu?l intercourse. So, without ?ny specific leg?l provision in the st?tute, it is ?lmost impossible to stop this perversion of m?rit?l r?pe. Its high time to m?ke the r?pe l?w gender-neutr?l, which is the need of the society ?nd dem?nd of ?rticle 14 of Indi?n Constitution.

In my opinion, r?pe l?ws should be much more stringent th?n they ?lre?dy ?re ?nd most import?ntly there should be ? pen?l provision ?g?inst m?rit?l r?pe ?s soon ?s possible. Del?y in tri?l procedure is ? big problem in tod?y’s crimin?l justice system. R?rest r?pe c?se tri?l should be set up immedi?tely. Few f?st tr?ck court should be set up th?t dedic?tes especi?lly for sexu?l ?ss?ult victims

But now?d?ys judgements ?re being p?ssed ?g?inst r?pe victims ?nd in f?vor of ?ccused which le?ds Indi?n society to ?n uns?fe pl?ce for women.

Recently, judgement w?s p?ssed reg?rding Kir?n Negi’s c?se th?t Supreme Court ?cquitted ?ll three men who ?llegedly g?ng-r?ped ?nd murdered 19-ye?r-old Kir?n Negi in 2012. E?rlier, the three were ?w?rded de?th pen?lty by ? Delhi Court in Febru?ry 2014 ?nd then by Delhi High Court in ?ugust 2014.

This judgement w?s liter?lly ? shock to the citizens of Indi?. This c?se shows the rotten condition of our crimin?l justice system.

The ?nger ?t the judgement is p?lp?ble. The Supreme Court ?cknowledges in the judgement th?t by ?llowing the culprits to esc?pe punishment, "? type of misery ?nd diss?tisf?ction m?y be inflicted to the society in gener?l ?nd to the f?mily of the victim in p?rticul?r." This ?lso undermines public confidence in the rule of l?w ?nd government institutions, which is why extr?judici?l killings ?re ?ppl?uded ?nd some people even choose to h?ndle things themselves.