Petition to Conduct CBI Enquiry into Murder of Dr J A Mathan

Saturday, 31 October 2009

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 19. Every Dog has its own Day

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 19. Every Dog has its own Day

Courtesy: 498A_Crusader


April 29th, 2009 by 498A_Crusader

No Marriage is a Bed of Roses! Every marriage has its own Problems, unique from others. From the outside it looks good. Problems are known only to those who are in Marriages. Unless you are in their shoes you never know the Problems. So was our case too.

I was not having money Problems, or job Problems! Even when I was paying EMIs for 3 Lakhs of Loan I took for marriage (which took me 3 years to repay), she was thinking, TELCO (The company I was working) is giving me bags full of money and I am not giving it to her or her Family. She was always fighting for my money. Even she was working, she never said “LET ME PAY”; to the contrary her Brothers were constantly demanding money from me.

We were blessed with Boy child BENNY, and I was enjoying his childhood as well as my neighbors, he was favorite of our neighbor Fathima Beebi. Even today she enquires me about BENNY, whenever I goes to Vasai.

Have I met him ?
Have I seen him ?
Show me his Photo ?
How tall he is ?
Whom does he look like ? etc etc
................and I can see pain and tears when she talks about him.

My Ex may be forgotten those Golden day, when he was singing
“kahona pyaal heeeeee”

and he cuddle his big teddy bear which plays the musical tune “You are My SUNSHINE” and playing with my big shoes.

and the Stone hearted Lady just walked away from all this, just like that.

Gone were those Golden days. Everything is over with just one False 498a. And now 10 years have passed.

As she also followed the same steps as those of her SISTER----- who killed her own Brother, Own Blood, Only Brother for LUST!
But my Ex did not kill me! But she ruined her own Only Family!
Now restlesly, shamelesly she is visiting my Blog! (i.e. My Nation)

Even though I put a banner, telling her not to visit my blog. It's Over, as I announced the plans for my Next marriage.

Here is the Log of the dates she Visited my Blog, to read what is cooking. I did not record all the dates! Some are missing, and sometimes she has visited the blog twice a day also.

04-03-2009
05-03-2009
08-03-2009
09-03-2009
10-03-2009
11-03-2009
17-03-2009
19-03-2009
22-03-2009
23-03-2009
24-03-2009
25-03-2009
27-03-2009
04-04-2009
05-04-2009
07-04-2009
10-04-2009
15-04-2009
17-04-2009
18-04-2009
23-04-2009
27-04-2009
28-03-2009
29-04-2009

Disclaimer: This is an autobiography of a Victim. Names of other individuals connected with the story have been changed or not mentioned.

Copyright © 498_Crusader

Reference:

Thursday, 29 October 2009

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 18. The Warning Signs

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 18. The Warning Signs

Courtesy: 498A_Crusader

July 6th, 2009 by 498A_Crusader

In the Famous Television serial 'LOST', Kate asks the French woman (who had lost her daughter 16 years ago) why she responded and showed any feelings, when others informed her that they found her Daughter with Ben in his hideout.

16 Years are too long to remember anything, her Daughter could be remembering anything, or someone must have told her, Your mother is Dead…..

Same stuff for me! Someone asked me after reading one of my posts, how they are treating Benny, How Pale he looked, and studying while sitting on the steps of house even without having proper chair or table…

I said, I did everything a Man can do in India legally. I would have taken him by force and kept with me, but I did nothing like that, coz I never knew what was in his mind. What she had told him about me. Maybe, she must have told, she does not know who is his Father or whereabouts or I am already Dead. She must have filled him with Full of Hate towards me for sure. As she lied on Bible in Church court

She gave False statements in Court that she is sending 10,000 Per month for him and arranged Rickshaw for go to school which she pays 5000. Which Rickshaw take more than Rupees 500 Per month.
Height of all this, she boldly claimed that she will take him with her to Dubai and Keep with her in 2003 in her 1st statement to court. And now, almost 5 years have passed, but he is still in India.

She was not telling lies to me, but fooling herself. whatever grudge she may hold against me and she wanted to harass me, that didn’t not affected me at all, but she was harassing him, and he was not having voice against her or injustice done against him and his rights to be with his Father.She violated an Innocent child's rights.

It was not me Victimised but him
It was not me Harassed but it was him
It was Brutality Against him
Its a RAPE on him,who missed his Childhood days Playing with his Father
I did nothing because I do not believe in worldly justice, as it’s totally biased against men. There were SIGNS for the sins they have done, and curse she invited not only against her but her whole Family. On the Judgment Day she will not find a Place to hide and no time to Repent.

Soon, she will be rewarded with the evil Fruits of her SINS.

Disclaimer: This is an autobiography of a Victim. Names of other individuals connected with the story have been changed or not mentioned.

Copyright © 498_Crusader

Reference:

No men OR women needed: Scientists create sperm and eggs from stem cells


No men OR women needed: Scientists create sperm and eggs from stem cells
29th October 2009
Human eggs and sperm have been grown in the laboratory in research which could change the face of parenthood.
It paves the way for a cure for infertility and could help those left sterile by cancer treatment to have children who are biologically their own.
But it raises a number of moral and ethical concerns. These include the possibility of children being born through entirely artificial means, and men and women being sidelined from the process of making babies.

Opponents argue that it is wrong to meddle with the building blocks of life and warn that the advances taking place to tackle infertility risk distorting and damaging relations between family members.
The U.S. government-funded research also offers the prospect of a 'miracle pill' which staves off the menopause, allowing women to wait longer to have a child.
It centres on stem cells, widely seen as a repair kit for the body.
Scientists at Stanford University in California found the right cocktail of chemicals and vitamins to coax the cells into becoming eggs and sperm.

The sperm had heads and short tails and are thought to have been mature enough to fertilise an egg.
The eggs were at a much earlier stage but were still much more developed than any created so far by other scientists.
The double success, published in the journal Nature, raises the prospect of men and women one day 'growing' their own sperm and eggs for use in IVF treatments.

The American team used stem cells taken from embryos in the first days of life but
hope to repeat the process with slivers of skin.
The skin cells would first be exposed to a mixture which wound back their biological clocks to embryonic stem cell state, before being transformed into sperm or eggs.
Starting with a person's own skin would also mean the lab-grown sperm or eggs would not be rejected by the body.
The science also raises the possibility of 'male eggs' made from men's skin and 'female sperm' from women's skin.
This would allow gay couples to have children genetically their own, although many scientists are sceptical about whether it is possible to create sperm from female cells, which lack the male Y chromosome.
The U.S. breakthrough could unlock many of the secrets of egg and sperm production, leading to new drug treatments for infertility.
Defects in sperm and egg development are the biggest cause of infertility but, because many of the key stages occur in the womb, scientists have struggled to study the process in detail.
Researcher Rita Reijo Pera, of Stanford's Centre for Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Research, believes new fertility drugs are just five years away.
However, safety and ethical concerns mean that artificial sperm and eggs are much further away from use.
Dr Reijo Pera said any future use of artificial eggs and sperm would have to be subject to guidelines.

'Whether one builds the boundaries on religion or just on an internal sense or of right and wrong, these are important. In this field, it is not "anything goes".'
Scientists at Newcastle University claimed to have made sperm from embryonic stem cells earlier this year but the research paper has been retracted.
Dr Allan Pacey, a Sheffield University expert in male fertility said: 'Ultimately this may help us find a cure for male infertility. Not necessarily by making sperm in the laboratory, I personally think that is unlikely, but by identifying new targets for drugs or genes that may stimulate sperm production to occur naturally.
'This is a long way off, but it is a laudable dream.'
Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said that IVF should be the preserve of married couples.
'The question is, why are we creating artificial gametes (eggs and sperm) and aborting 200,000 babies a year when there are many, many couples willing to adopt?'
Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, warned that any flaws in the artificial sperm or eggs could be passed on to future generations.
Anthony Ozimic, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: 'The use of artificial gametes in reproduction would distort and damage relations between family members.
'There are no instances of any major medical advance achieved by abandoning basic ethical principles such as safeguarding the right to life.'


Wednesday, 28 October 2009

'Father-daughter marriage is void': declares Islamic seminary


'Father-daughter marriage is void'
21 November 2007
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Father-daughter-marriage-is-void/articleshow/2559023.cms
MUZAFFARNAGAR: Leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband has declared the marriage of a 37-year-old man with his teenaged daughter in West Bengal as null and void and ruled that the girl's impregnation by her father will be treated as rape and the culprits will be punishable under the Shariat laws.

In a shocking incident, a daily wage labourer named Afizuddin Ali married his teenage daughter and made her pregnant, citing "divine sanction" at Kashiajhora village in Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal recently.

Stating that Islam prohibits such marriages, Darul Uloom Deoband in its ruling described the marriage as shameful and illegal according to the Shariat law.

The ruling issued by the incharge of the Fatwa department of the Islamic seminary Mufti Habibur Rehman asked the couple to break the relationship immediately to avoid harsh punishment.

`No laws protecting rights of kids below 6 yrs'

`No laws protecting rights of kids below 6 yrs'
29 October 2009
BANGALORE: National Commission for Protection of Child Rights chairperson Shantha Sinha on Wednesday stressed the need for a legal instrument to provide all essential services that enable children access to health, nutrition, care and protection.

Speaking at the 36th foundation day lecture on `Deficit Childhood -- Implications for India's Democracy', at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore (IIM-B), she observed that a large number of children, especially those below six years, are left out of the purview of laws. "Thus there is no law protecting children's rights in the 0-6 age group at present," she said.

Though there are certain legal instruments derived from the labour legislations pertaining to the factories Act, mines and plantation, and construction workers, in reality they have remained on paper. But the Right To Education (RTE) Bill, which stresses upon providing free and compulsory education for children, makes education a fundamental right for each and every child in the 6-to-14 years category. "It's a great law. Education can prevent children from getting caught in various activities including trafficking," she said.

After more than 60 years of Independence, Sinha said that children's rights as the state's obligation are yet to become a whole-hearted commitment. "There's deficit childhood in every respect, harming the development of children's fullest potential," the chairperson said.

However, she said there are gainful achievements in some areas in the country with some states, districts and blocks doing better than the rest on the child development indicators of health, nutrition, education and other entitlements. These continue to be abysmally poor in some pockets for certain class of children.

"Deficit childhood is in a sense absence or failure of the state. This can result in a child's expulsion from the state and market. Also, deficit childhood shows the state's failure to reach out to every child and not to the incapacity of the child to access her entitlements," she added.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

NRI Child abduction row 'Rescue Aditya': CBI (Institution) to watch over child and play role of Family

NRI Child abduction row 'Rescue Aditya': CBI (Institution) to watch over child and play role of Family
28 October 2009
NEW DELHI: No five-year-old could have ever experienced such drama in his life — allegedly abducted from US to India by his mother who deftly dodged police of three states, the father moving the Supreme Court and finally the CBI tracing the child and producing him with mother before the SC on Tuesday.

He may have thought that the horrible real life drama was nearing an end but probably it was yet another beginning. For, a Bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Cyriac Joseph asked an unwilling CBI to look after the child while he was lodged with his mother in a Delhi guesthouse under its supervision.

He now has to wait till Wednesday for any new twist to his roller-coaster ride chartered mainly by his mother, who divorced her husband after a bitter fight in US before slipping out to India two years ago.

The traumatic experience of the minor did touch a raw chord of the apex court. The Bench, hearing an habeas corpus petition by father P Ravichandran, declined to entrust the mother with the child's custody.

"We feel really sorry for the manner in which the child is being harassed," the Bench said and posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday. "We cannot allow the son to be given to you. He will be kept under the guard of CBI," the Bench told the mother while asking her to engage a lawyer and produce relevant documents during the next hearing. The CBI counsel told the court that the agency did not have proper facility to lodge a child for a long period.

Ravichandran had alleged that after their divorce was granted by a US court, the mother — Vijayshree Voora — escaped to India breaching the US court's order that had granted joint custody of the child to the parents.

The SC had entrusted the task of tracing the child and the mother to the CBI after police of three states — Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu — failed to track them down, a fact that did not go down well with the apex court on Tuesday.

With the CBI tracing the missing child and mother within two months of the SC's direction on August 29, the Bench expressed dismay that its order to the same effect to the police of three states went abegging for two years.

NRI father Dr Ravichandran fails to see 'abducted' son Aditya

The Courts and CBI need Sensitization to needs of Children and Families. Both parents need the meet, greet, hug and kiss their own children, despite custodial battles.
Institutionalization of Children (whether abducted, orphaned or abandonned) is not a Solution.

Children need Families, and CBI or Supreme Court don't fall in the category of 'Families'. They fall in the category of Institutions.

NRI father fails to see 'abducted' son
October 28, 2009
New Delhi: "Don't punish my child, punish me; don't drag him, drag me," a wailing India-born pharmaceutical scientist from the US pleaded as heavily armed CBI sleuths pushed his seven-year-old son inside a court room of the Supreme Court. The sleuths had tracked down the son and his mother to Chennai last week.


Dr V Ravi Chandran has been in India for the past two years, looking for his US-born son Aditya. Chandran's estranged wife Vijayshree Voora moved Aditya to India against an American family court order. The court had also allowed the child's father his joint custody.

The apex court declined to grant interim custody of the seven-year old child to either parent, but came down heavily on the failure of the Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh police to arrest the woman.

The court pointed out that the boy was pursuing his education at a Chennai school for the past several months and yet the police could not track him, while the CBI managed to nab the woman with her son just two months after the court directed it in August to trace the child, who had been spotted with his mother in various cities. "For two years, you have not been able to trace her. Very, very ungraceful. The part played by the state is disgraceful. We are sorry to say. We are going to pass strictures against you all," the bench remarked at the counsel representing Karnataka.

The woman never appeared before the apex court and when the CBI produced them before it, she sought adjournment saying she needed a lawyer. The bench of justices Tarun Chatterji and G S Singhvi directed the CBI to supervise Aditya's care at the CPWD guest house and posted the matter for further hearing next Wednesday. Chandra saw the child briefly when he was brought to Justice Chatterjee's residence on Sunday. But he could not meet him for want of court's permission. He waited for Tuesday to "meet, hug and kiss" him, but the court turned down his request and fixed November 4 to hear his saga.

Chandran stood a helpless spectator as CBI sleuths "dragged my child and pushed and treated him like he was a dangerous criminal. What's his fault?".

"I tried to see the child, but couldn't. I wanted to bid him good bye, but couldn't, I wanted to hug, but couldn't, I want to embrace and kiss him, but couldn't," Chandran cried like a child while pleading, "please don't torture my child."

Same gotra match: Family (ex-serviceman father et al) kills boy, let kin rape girl

Same gotra match: Family (ex-serviceman father et al) kills boy, let kin rape girl
28 October 2009
NEW DELHI: It would have been a familiar ending to a familiar story. Three years after a young couple fled their village in Haryana from families opposed to the ``same-gotra'' union, the girl's family allegedly killed the 22-year-old man and locked up their daughter to be repeatedly raped by her relatives and their friends. She would have been killed too, say cops, but the gritty 21-year-old escaped from her captors and approached the police, turning in her father and other family members.

The gory turn of events began on Diwali day in Narela, outer Delhi, where the couple was tricked into joining a friend for celebrations. Police has arrested four people — the girl's father Daya Singh (50), her nephew Sandeep and his friends Pawan and Inderjeet — for the alleged ``honour killing'' of her husband. They are also looking into claims by the girl that she was confined and raped by Sandeep and his acquaintances from October 17 to 22 when she managed to flee.

DCP (outer) Atul Katiyar said the victim Shruti (name changed) approached cops on October 26 with the help of a friend. Based on her account, police recovered the body of her husband, Virender Singh, from a canal in Sonepat district. A Maruti Van owned by Sandeep which was allegedly used to dump the body has also been seized.

Police said Shruti was 18 and a student of Class 10 when she fell in love with Singh, two years her senior at school. `Their relationship was deeply resented by her family and the villagers of Mahara in Sonepat as both belonged to the same gotra. Unable to convince their families, they fled from the village in October 2006,'' said Om Prakash, assistant commissioner of police for operations, Outer Delhi. Both were majors — Shruti was 18, while Virender was 19.

A case of kidnapping was lodged against Virender by the Sonepat police and he was arrested and sent to jail. In January 2007, even as Virender was in jail, Shruti was forcibly married to Jaipal, from Teli Khera village near Jind in Haryana. Jaipal began to abuse her when he came to know of her past and Shruti lodged a case with the Jind police. But no action was taken and a desperate Shruti contacted Virender who was out on bail.

The couple decided to reunite and Shruti left Jaipal to set up home with Virender in Samaipur Badli in outer Delhi. On August 8, 2008, they got married in a temple in Chandigarh.

``They shifted to Samalkha in Haryana after her father traced them in Samaipur Badli and threatened to kill Virender,'' said an investigating officer. Meanwhile, angered by his ``wife's boldness'', Jaipal lodged a kidnapping case against Virender with the Jind police. ``Fearing that they might be arrested again, the couple contacted the district collector's office in Jind and clarified that they had married of their own free will.''

That didn't help, though. The couple were arrested and Virender, who was working with a food company by then, was sent to jail again.

``The girl refused to go back to her father's place, fearing she would be killed, and stayed at the local Nari Niketan. All through Virender's trial, she maintained that she had gone with him of her own accord. The case was dismissed and Virender was freed,'' said DCP Katiyar.

On October 17, Virender was invited by his friend Inderjeet to spend Diwali at Sandeep's house in Narela. The couple accepted, unaware that Sandeep would also be present.

Around 10.30pm on that day, Shruti's father, an ex-serviceman currently employed as a security officer, reached the house with his son and nephew and beat up Virender before allegedly strangling him to death.

``Shruti was allegedly raped by Sandeep and Inderjeet in another room. Sandeep carried the body in his van and dumped it in a canal after tying a stone around the neck. The girl was kept confined in a room in Narela and threatened to return to Jind or face death,'' said Katiyar. Police are now investigating the role of other family members in the incident. ``Her first husband, Jaipal, is under the scanner too. The girl is still under severe trauma and we are providing counselling to her,'' added the DCP.

Human trafficking from Nepal to Mangalore

Unwelcome traffick from Nepal

Trafficking in Nepalese girls is growing even in a second-tier city like Mangalore, as proved by recent raids


Mangalore: In a raid by the district police led by ASP Amith Singh on Sunday night at a lodge here, 14 persons, including girls from Nepal and West Bengal, were arrested. It is known that major destinations for Nepalese girls are the brothels of Kolkata and Mumbai, and there is a distinct possibility that the girls are being brought from Mumbai to Mangalore.

According to sources, these girls, apart from being lured into prostitution, can also end up as forced domestic labour. Often, brokers make false promises of lucrative work to girls who are willing to travel to other countries. On the other hand, many a time girls in Nepal are victims of domestic repression and want to run away from their homes. Girls from rural areas in Nepal are particularly vulnerable and are traded for lower rates.

Speaking to the media, ASP Amith Singh said, “Serious efforts are being made to control prostitution in Mangalore. We are concentrating on the investigations so that convictions can take place.”

Referring to the raid at Hotel Prithvi Regency near Kottara Chowki on Sunday evening, he said, “From the past two months, we have been working on the case posing as fake customers and collecting details.” On the increase in the number of Nepali girls lured into prostitution in Mangalore, Singh said, “Investigations are on and we are looking into their entry into the city. There are three to four agents working in Mangalore, and one of the kingpins was arrested during Sunday’s raid.”

However, it is a fact that raids notwithstanding, the flesh trade is back in business in a matter of days. On this, the ASP said, “In future, we will keep a constant watch on such centres.” Referring to a recent incident in Hoige Bazaar, he said, “Despite our conducting a raid, the ‘business’ in the centre came back in a couple of days. A second raid was conducted and for the time being, at least, there has been a full stop.”

WINE SHOP DEADLINE
Following a recent raid at Hotel Siddharth, the ASP has ordered all wine shops in the city to close down by 10.30 pm and restaurants with bars by 11.30 pm. “The order was based on their licences. Recently, we held a meeting with wine shop and bar owners and asked them to follow the deadline, failing which, action would be taken against them. This is an attempt to curb the activities of anti-social elements,” he said. “There have been no reports of violations ever since the order was passed. I personally go on the night rounds to check for such violations,” he added.

Dr Ravichandran sees son Aditya after 2-year struggle and Child Kidnapping by ex-wife Vijayasree Voora

Dr Ravichandran sees son Aditya after 2-year struggle and Child Kidnapping by ex-wife Vijayasree Voora

After sparing no efforts to trace his seven-year-old child Aditya, who was kidnapped by his estranged wife from the US two years ago, scientist Ravichandran finally gets to see him

October 27, 2009

For US-based scientist Ravichandran and his seven-year-old son Aditya, it was an emotional reunion after being separated for two years as the scientist’s wife had allegedly kidnapped the boy and gone ‘underground’.

“I am happy that I am near my son. I am very happy to see him after more than two years. I was worried about his future as he wasn’t going to school. Now I have hopes in my life and I am eager to take him and give my son a great future,” he told Bangalore Mirror.

His wife, Vijaysree Voora, had run away with Aditya on June 28, 2007 despite a family court of New York granting joint custody of the boy to the parents in 2007. On Sept 14, 2007, the same court granted sole legal and physical custody of Aditya to Ravichandran.

TRACED IN CHENNAI

The CBI sleuths, who found the woman and her son in a house in RA Puram in Chennai on Saturday, presented them before a Supreme Court magistrate on Sunday. The court will give its ruling on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Kumar Jahagirdar, president of CRISP, an NGO, who played a part in tracing Aditya, plans to request the apex court to grant custody of the boy to both parents.

Ravichandran and Voora legally separated in 2005 in the US. While a New York court granted joint custody of Aditya to the couple, Voora brought him to India in defiance of the court orders.

“Ravichandran filed a habeas corpus petition for production of his son before the apex court. The court then issued notices to respondents for producing the child before it, but the respondents failed to do so,” said a CBI official.

Chandran, on his part, made efforts to trace the child. He provided the police with inputs on the possible ‘hideouts’ of Voora and his son.
In pursuance to these inputs, the apex court issued directions to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Chandigarh police for tracing Aditya and bringing him before it.

Ravichandran was in Bangalore in search of his son. Bangalore Mirror wrote about it. A reader who found Voora and the boy in a Rajajinagar lodge informed the police, but she had managed to give police the slip.

CBI TAKES UP CASE

As the two could not be traced, CBI was entrusted with the task two months ago. The country’s top investigation agency then issued a nation-wide lookout and alert notices and declared a cash award of Rs 1 lakh and hosted information on Voora and the child on its website.

WARRANT ON MOM

The Chennai high court had on Nov 15, 2007 dismissed Voora’s petition for sole custody of Aditya. On Dec 20, 2007, it ordered the Chennai police to secure Voora.

A US federal arrest warrant charging Voora with international kidnapping is pending with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A non-bailable criminal child abuse arrest warrant for Voora was issued by the New York Supreme Court on Jan 7, 2008, while the US Department of Homeland Security ordered Voora’s arrest upon her re-entry to USA.

Biography of a Wife harassed by the "Other Woman": Chapter 13. Upbringing and Identity

Biography of a Wife harassed by the "Other Woman": Chapter 13. Upbringing and Identity

Main Characters:
1. Pranati Devi -The Legally Wedded Wife or Narrator
2. Gayatri Devi alias Mata Hari - The OTHER WOMAN luring the Husband in an existing marriage
3. Aditya Kumar-The Husband
-------------------------
ate of writing: 26 October 2009
Date of Editing: 27 October 2009

A child’s mind is very impressionable! What a child sees and experiences at an early age impacts identity formation.

Normally, a child forms it's identity by choosing traits from its role models. For example, a child can assume the he /she is like father in stubbornness, like mother in perseverance, like an uncle in humor, etc.

This identity once formed becomes static and as the child grows it shows behaviour consistent with this identity. Now, if the child sees itself as a good person even though the result of goodness is harm to others, the child's unlikely to change its behaviour.

As the identity is formed at a very young age and is impacted by upbringing, parents need to be very careful in providing the right environment, exposure and experience to children.

The schematic representation of the impact of upbringing on relationships and identity is given below:
Dysfunctional relationships in homes and society breed dysfunctional Adults.

Gayatri Devi had a very troubled childhood. Her parents Mr. V R and Selvi were not well off. There was never enough to take care of basic needs. Mr. V R’s Government job was a saviour that helped the family get a decent living and provide for a good education to Gayatri Devi. Her mother had a miscarriage of a male foetus, before Gayatri Devi came along.
Selvi and Mr. V R squabbled often, with Mr. V R turning violent after a few drinks and thrashing Selvi. Mr. V R also accused Selvi of having an extramarital affair. To top it all, the loss of their son Santhanam was a major blow to Selvi and Mr. V R.

Mr. V R started resenting Gayatri Devi for being alive, instead of his beloved son. These circumstances had a great impact on Gayatri Devi. She hated her father for despising her, but secretly longed for his attention.

Selvi and Mr. V R wanted Gayatri Devi to replace their dead son. They wanted Gayatri Devi to fulfill their aspirations. Gayatri Devi had to become smart, attractive and popular. This shaped Gayatri Devi’s identity. Gayatri Devi became cunning, shrewd, calculative and cold-blooded. All her moves now had a clearly defined motive. Gayatri Devi was encouraged to cultivate friendship only with high-ranking officers' children. This resulted in Gayatri Devi developing the Rambha / Menaka (courtesan) identity.

The seed that was sown in nascent age, reached full bloom when Gayatri Devi reached her post-teens and joined NIIT in the year 1999.
-------------------------------
Voice of Women is pleased to present the BIOGRAPHY OF A WIFE (WHO IS BEING HARASSED BY A YOUNGER WOMAN COMPETING FOR THE ATTENTION OF HER HUSBAND).

Inspired by the success of the 'Chronicles of a Battered Abused Discriminated and Disadvantaged Fatherless Girl-child'----another woman has come forward with her "Testimony of a wife in an existing marriage", who is being harassed by a Young Unattached Woman who is wooing for the attention of her HUSBAND and luring him.

This TESTIMONY brings to LIGHT the Strenuous circumstances of LEGALLY WEDDED OLDER WOMEN, who are facing competition from 'Sexually empowered young women'. These 'OTHER WOMEN' are younger, divorced or free, and compete to STEAL HUSBANDS FROM EXISTING MARRIAGES, by hook or by crook (and other carnal means----by Lure, beauty and looks!). And, then proceed to Sham conversions to Islam, Sham marriages, adultery, and other Social crimes ---if unchecked.

The core issue of the Biography is to look for Solutions for "The Other Women" in our Homes, Community, Society and the Corporate World. The solutions include Counseling, Healing, Family Forums and other Alternative Counseling Forums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The Story is told in the first person narrative by the " Legally Wedded Wife".

For reasons of confidentiality, please don't assume the identity of the 'narrator'. The entire story has been placed in custody of certain well-wishers. Names and identities of characters have been masked and changed to protect their identities. Let us call the name of the WIFE as 'Pranati Devi'.

Images used are only representative of the story.

Strong Legal action will be taken in Bangalore jurisdiction, against all those who claim to resemble or know the identity of any characters mentioned in this Biography.

Events are true and character sketches are disguised to protect their identities.

Copyright © 2010 Roshni Pereira and "Pranati Devi, The Legally Wedded Wife"


Saturday, 24 October 2009

Breaking News: Child abductee Aditya rescued from mother Vijayasree Voora!

BREAKING NEWS!
Picture: Dr Savio Pereira, Roshni Pereira (Voice of Women India blogger & CRISP counselor), Dr Ravichandran, Kumar Jahgirdar (CRISP) & Dr Jahgirdar in happier times on March 15, 2009

In a welcome mode, Aditya has been rescued from his mother Vijayasree Voora on 24-10-2009. The CBI arrested Vijayasree Voora in a swoop in Chennai International Airport.

Kumar Jahgirdar from CRISP, Bangalore (Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting) was a key mover for media coverage for the atrocity committed on an UNWILLING child, and a source of Strong moral support to Dr Ravichandran.

The regular tip-offs to Dr Ravichandran (from variety of sources) included hits from Internet Web-tracking tools used from the website of Voice of Women & Families. Mrs Vijayasree was an ardent follower of the Voice of Women blog and Rescue Aditya website (hosted by her ex-husband).

Read earlier posts:
and
and
Vijayasree Voora had abducted her child from her ex-husband, in an International Child hunt by CBI and other investigative agencies. The child is under the protective custody of the CBI.

CBI traces Aditya Chandran ‘abducted’ by mother
October 26, 2009 New Delhi, Oct 26
A seven-year-old son of an estranged non-resident Indian (NRI) couple has been recovered from his mother, who was on the run for the past two years with the boy, Central Bureau of Investigation officials said here Sunday.
The woman, Vijayasree Voora, and her son Aditya were presented before the Supreme Court Sunday after they were located by the CBI sleuths in Chennai Saturday.
The CBI officials said Voora and her husband Ravi Chandran separated in 2005 under the orders of a competent court in the US. The family welfare court of the state of New York then granted joint custody of Aditya to his estranged parents.
But two years ago, Voora brought the boy to India defying court orders.
“Ravi Chandran filed a habeas corpus petition for production of his son before the apex court and his restoration to him. The court then issued notices to the respondents for production of the subject child before it but the respondents failed to do so,” a CBI official said here.

In the meantime, Chandran on his part also made efforts to trace the child. He even provided inputs about the possible hideouts of his estranged wife and son from time to time, wherever they were spotted in India.

In pursuance to these inputs, the apex court issued directions to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Chandigarh police for tracing Aditya and bringing him before it.
However, Voora along with Aditya could not be traced and the matter was entrusted to the CBI two months ago.

The country’s elite investigation agency then issued lookout and alert notices on all-India basis. It declared a cash reward of Rs.100,000 and flashed the bio-data of Voora and her son on its website.

The CBI then managed to trace the boy and his mother from a house in R.A. Puram in Chennai, where they were found living in rented premises for the last one week.
Aditya and his mother have been presented before the court, which would give its ruling Tuesday.

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 17. Advice to my 498A Brothers (Fellow Victims of False Allegations)

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 17. Advice to my 498A Brothers (Fellow Victims of False Allegations)
Courtesy: 498A_Crusader

July 19th, 2009 by 498A_Crusader
Many asked so many times; How I over come this false 498A and cop with all Problems.

Here is my simple Advice to all my 498A Brothers.

DO NOT PANIC, when you are hit by false 498a, if you were not taken any dowry or demanded.

If you handle carefully, she will be trapped in her own ill Plan.

If you were staying with her separate than your parents, Rearrange whole house, remove all things, whatever which remind about her.

If she has not taken her things, ask Police to tell her to take her things, and Give this in writing to them.

If she is taking her things, ask her list of the things she took.

If others are accused, get bail for them and for yourself.

Never compromise or agree to her demands.

Never settle out of court.

Find better criminal Lawyer, talk about his fees than Case. do not give him all money in Advance, some lawyer take money on every memo or appeal they file, tell him clearly, half to take case, rest after completion of case. let him file 1000 memos. Pay him by cheque.

If she wrote that she spent so much money on marriage File RTI to get her Fathers financial details, if she shows huge amount spent on marriage.

Find loop holes and false statements she made so you can file counter case on her.

If she filed case on you at her Place where you never stayed together then use this Judgment to transfer case. http://mynation.net/docs/415-2004/


Read About IPC section here http://mynation.net/ipc.htm so you will know in-depth knowledge of what they are taking about.

See the Judgment – Section 498A. Explained http://mynation.net/docs/967-2008/

and you can file Counter based on this article – http://mynation.net/docs/counter/


If you are going for Divorce then Read this Judgment – Divorce on the grounds of cruelty to husband – http://mynation.net/docs/877-2007/

There are many other useful documents / Judgments are on http://mynation.net/docs/ search for relevant articles.

It’s your case, do study all this, and as per your knowledge advice your lawyer what to do, do not just node for whatever he says.

You know your situation better than anyone else.

and do not sit at home thinking about case and her. Move on, enjoy life. It will take time, but be prepared for anything than compromise.

and my personal advice is, you will get better food outside for less, and enjoy newly found FREEDOM.

Everyone situation is Different than mine, so if you find difficult to understand all this you can write to us here http://mynation.net/advice/ – Rest assured.


Disclaimer: This is an autobiography of a Victim. Names of other individuals connected with the story have been changed or not mentioned.

Copyright © 498_Crusader

Reference:

Stepdad regrets raping Khar girl, say cops

Stepdad regrets raping Khar girl, say cops
25 October 2009
MUMBAI: For over six years, she was allegedly raped by her stepfather, a fact that the rest of her family was unaware of. Twenty-year-old Seema's ordeal would have continued had she not started resisting his advances.

Seema (name changed) was a teenager when her stepfather, Andrew Fernandes (41), allegedly sexually abused her repeatedly, from 2000 to 2006. A driver by profession, Fernandes used to stay with Seema, her sibling and their mother at Khar Danda.

In her statement to the police, Seema has disclosed that initially she was too young to understand what was happening. But when she turned 17 in 2006, she decided not to allow her stepfather to come near her. For the past three years, Fernandes did not sexually assault Seema. But he had succeeded in making her afraid and she did not mention a word to anyone about what she had gone through until recently.

On Friday, Seema approached the Khar police after a lecturer from her college at Bandra gave her support. Seema had confided in him earlier this month and the lecturer told her not to remain quiet any more.

"Fernandes has admitted to the crime and has been remanded in police custody,'' an officer said. "He has been sobbing in the lock-up and regrets his actions.''

According to the police, Seema did not have the courage to confide in her mother either. Officials said she may have to undergo counselling now.

"Seema has been undergoing medical check-ups. We don't think she was administered drugs or sedatives at any point of time,'' an IPS officer said.

Fernandes is a native of Goa. He used to work with Seema's father in the early '90s and the two became good friends. After Seema's father died, Fernandes got married to her mother in 2000.

Seema's ordeal began soon after her mother remarried. The police will now probe if Seema's sibling, who is five years younger to her, has also been a victim of abuse. Fernandes also has a biological child with Seema's mother.

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 16. Morals, Morality and Upbringing

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 16. Morals, Morality and Upbringing

Courtesy: 498A_Crusader


August 3rd, 2009

by 498A_Crusader

Her Mother, My ex-"Mother-out-law", always swears and boasts to the neighbours and others, that they will raise my son with ?Good morals and Good education.

When I went to India this time, one of her neighbour told this to me and that made me laugh loudly.The Confused informer asked me what happened.

I asked her, "Do they give good Education? This Mother-out-law, Failed to Provide Education to her own son who never passed 8th Standard and other one has never seen the Steps of a college! Do you think she will give Good Education to my son…?"
Yeah, that’s true…. she said.

I continued. Whenever I went to My Ex's sister-out-law's house for party or Function, her 5 year-old-son was always fighting for the coloured thing (his father's drink), no need to say alcohol. Instead of scolding him, they used to give him a Glass with BEER!

BEER to a 5 year-old….Imagine…..!

Is that the morals she is talking about?, I asked.

That’s an old story, no need to ask anyone. Next time, when a ragpicker or those batliwala comes, ask him how many bottles he got from my Father-out-law's house? Every evening before dinner he want some TONIC and he is drinking in front of my son! Is that morals, she is talking about?

That lady knew, if she stands there I will continue this long, she said. She remembered some urgent work and left.

Disclaimer: This is an autobiography of a Victim. Names of other individuals connected with the story have been changed or not mentioned.

Copyright © 498_Crusader

Reference:

Friday, 23 October 2009

DHARNA FOR CHILD RIGHTS BY SIFF, AIMPF, CRISP, AIDPF


DHARNA FOR CHILD RIGHTS BY SIFF, AIMPF, CRISP, AIDPF


The Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), All India Mother-In-Law Protection Forum, Child Rights Initiative For Shared Parenting and All India Daughter's Protection Forum will stage a dharna on October 25 in front of Mahatma Gandhi's statue on M G Road.



The NGOs will highlight the aftermath of broken families and effect on children. They will also campaign against child abuse -- physical, economical and emotional. They claim the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act is abused by alienating the child from the father, which is unjust. The SIFF plans to file a PIL in the Supreme Court demanding mandatory shared parenting in such cases.

Thursday, 22 October 2009

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 15. The Long arms of the Law (Kanoon ke Haath)

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 15. The Long arms of the Law (Kanoon ke Haath)

Courtesy: 498A_Crusader

September 10th, 2009 by 498A_Crusader

Whenever I am in the court for following-up my 498a case, the Judge's assistant (a lady) remembered my name and asked the Peon to take out my case-file from a cupboard. Very few recall my name, as it is not the usual one and for other communities (other than Christians) it is difficult to remember too. Still, she pronounces my name correctly, as soon as she sees me.

She is very much sympathetic to me; she says, "Come regularly and finish off this matter".

I said, "Madam, I do not want to quash this case, I want to bring her to court to face the trial.
We sent notice, now we are waiting for Police report, if they failed to produce her we will make it Non-Bailable and send a search warrant. "Kanoon ke haath bahut lambe hothe hain (Hindi=The arms of the law are very long!)". But, it will take time.
As she (the Legal assistant) knows, it's a totally false case, and she is aware there are many Legal terrorists misusing this law to harass men.

Disclaimer: This is an autobiography of a Victim. Names of other individuals connected with the story have been changed or not mentioned.

Copyright © 498_Crusader

Reference:
http://mynation.net/abio/kanoon-ke-haath/

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 14. Prediction of the Date of Birth of my son

Autobiography of a Dowry Law (IPC 498a) Victim: Chapter 14. Prediction of My Son's Date of Birth

Courtesy: 498A_Crusader

November 7th, 2007 by 498A_Crusader
http://mynation.net/abio/my-sons-birth-prediction/

I was planning not to have Children for at least 2 years, till we planned our Future and secured enough financially.We did not know about any Family Planning techniques, so she got pregnant immediately after Marriage.

Picture: Udupi


After 7 months of pregnancy, as a custom I sent her to her parents' home in Udupi; as we were working in Bombay.
Picture: Food in Udipi

After a few days, I had a gut feeling that 'she' would deliver a baby boy on 26th January 1998. It was almost 6 months before my son's birth.

Even today, I do not know how it (the date) came to my mind. As I predicted among many other things, she delivered on 26th January 1998, exactly after 9 months of our marriage.

Disclaimer: This is an autobiography of a Victim. Names of other individuals connected with the story have been changed or not mentioned.


Copyright © 498_Crusader

Reference:
http://mynation.net/abio/my-sons-birth-prediction/

PENAL CODE:OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY ( A PRIMER):CORPORAL CRIMES

PENAL CODE:OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY ( A PRIMER): CORPORAL CRIMES


Offences affecting life

Culpable homicide.
299. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) Deleted by Act 51/2007, wef 01/02/2008.
Explanation 1.
A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.
Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.
The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Murder.
300. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is murder —
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death;
(b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;
(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a knife-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.
(d) A, without any excuse, fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:
(a) that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person;
(b) that the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant;
(c) that the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z’s child. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a police officer. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z’s nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife, Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
Exception 2.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law, and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence, without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant, or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant, and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.
It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.
Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under 18 years of age, to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death. A has therefore abetted murder.
Exception 6.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender being a woman voluntarily causes the death of her child being a child under the age of 12 months, and at the time of the offence the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child.
Exception 7.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in causing the death or being a party to causing the death.
Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended.

301. If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.
Punishment for murder.

302. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.
Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

304*. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished —
(a) with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning, if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
(b) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
*There is no section 303
62/73.

Causing death by rash or negligent act.
304A. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished —
(a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both; or
(b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.
305. If any person under 18 years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Abetment of suicide.
306. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Attempt to murder.
307. —(1) Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to caning or fine or both.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, throws the child into a river. A has committed the offence defined by this section, although the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section; and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servants to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Other offences by convicts.
(2) When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
62/73.

Attempt to commit culpable homicide.
308. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.
Illustration
A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

Attempt to commit suicide.
309. Whoever attempts to commit suicide, and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Infanticide.
310. When any woman by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child being a child under the age of 12 months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child, she shall notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this section the offence would have amounted to murder, be guilty of the offence of infanticide.

Punishment for infanticide.
311. Whoever commits the offence of infanticide shall be punished at the discretion of the court with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Causing miscarriage; injuries to unborn children; exposure of infants; and concealment of births.

Causing miscarriage.
312. Subject to the provisions of the Termination of Pregnancy Act, whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both; and if the woman is quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.
A woman who causes herself to miscarry is within the meaning of this section.
Cap. 324.
32/80.

Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent.
313. Whoever commits the offence defined in section 312, without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage. If act done without woman’s consent.
314. Subject to the provisions of the Termination of Pregnancy Act, whoever with intent to cause the miscarriage of a woman with child does any act which causes the death of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the act is done without the consent of the woman, shall be punished either with imprisonment for life, or with the punishment above-mentioned.
Explanation.
It is not essential to this offence that the offender should know that the act is likely to cause death.
Cap. 324.
32/80.
Child destruction before, at or immediately after birth.
315. —(1) Subject to the provisions of the Termination of Pregnancy Act, whoever, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother or by such act causes the child to die after its birth, shall, unless such act is immediately necessary to save the life of the mother, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or with fine, or with both.
32/80.
(2) For the purposes of this section, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of 28 weeks or more shall be prima facie evidence that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.
Causing death of a quick unborn child by an act amounting to culpable homicide.
316. Whoever does any act under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide, and does by such act cause the death of a quick unborn child, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustration
A, knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide. The woman is injured, but does not die; but the death of an unborn quick child with which she is pregnant is thereby caused. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.

Exposure and abandonment of a child under 12 years by parent or person having care of it.
317. Whoever, being the father or mother of a child under the age of 12 years, or having the care of such child, exposes or leaves such child in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such child, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.
This section is not intended to prevent the trial of the offender for murder or culpable homicide as the case may be, if the child dies in consequence of the exposure.

Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body.
318. Whoever by secretly burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body of a child, whether such child dies before or after or during its birth, intentionally conceals or endeavours to conceal the birth of such child shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Hurt.
319. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
Explanation.––A person is said to cause hurt if he causes another person to be unconscious.

Grievous hurt.
320. The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:
(a) emasculation;
(aa) death;
(b) permanent privation of the sight of either eye;
(c) permanent privation of the hearing of either ear;
(d) privation of any member or joint;
(e) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint;
(f) permanent disfiguration of the head or face;
(g) fracture or dislocation of a bone;
(h) any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits;
(i) penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person without that person’s consent, which causes severe bodily pain.

Voluntarily causing hurt.
321. Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
322. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt”.
Explanation.
A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt if, intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
Illustration
A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z’s face, gives Z a blow which does not permanently disfigure Z’s face but which causes Z to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of 20 days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.

Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
323. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
324. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.
62/73.

Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
325. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
62/73.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
326. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.

Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property or to constrain to an illegal act.
327. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer, or any person interested in such sufferer, to do anything which is illegal, or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.

Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.
328. Whoever administers to, or causes to be taken by, any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug or other thing, with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act.
329. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer, or any person interested in such sufferer, to do anything which is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.

Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property.
330. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer, or any person interested in the sufferer, to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security, or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Illustrations
(a) A, a police officer, tortures Z in order to induce Z to confess that he committed a crime. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(b) A, a police officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A, a customs officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to confess to a pretended offence against the customs laws. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property.
331. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer, or any person interested in the sufferer, to restore or to cause the restoration or any property or valuable security, or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
62/73.

Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
332. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.
62/73.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
333. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
62/73.

Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation.
334. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.

Causing grievous hurt on provocation.
335. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 years, or with fine which may extend to $10,000, or with both.
Explanation.
Sections 334 and 335 are subject to the same provisos as exception 1 of section 300.

Punishment for act which endangers life or the personal safety of others.
336. Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished —
(a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both; or
(b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.

Causing hurt by an act which endangers life or the personal safety of others.
337. Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished —
(a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both; or
(b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.

Causing grievous hurt by an act which endangers life or the personal safety of others.
338. Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished —
(a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 years, or with fine which may extend to $10,000, or with both; or
(b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.

Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement.

Wrongful restraint.
339. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person, so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.
The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
Illustration
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.

Wrongful confinement.
340. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.
Illustrations
(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.
(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

Punishment for wrongful restraint.
341. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.

Punishment for wrongful confinement.
342. Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $3,000, or with both.

Wrongful confinement for 3 or more days.
343. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for 3 days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Wrongful confinement for 10 or more days.
344. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for 10 days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation a writ has been issued.
345. Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Code.

Wrongful confinement in secret.
346. Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such a manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of that person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.

Wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting property or constraining to an illegal act.
347. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the person confined, or any person interested in such person, to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting confession or of compelling restoration of property.
348. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined, or any person interested in the person confined, to restore, or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security, or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Criminal force and assault.
Force.
349. A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the following 3 ways:
(a) by his own bodily power;
(b) by disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion, or change or cessation of motion, takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person;
(c) by inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.

Criminal force.
350. Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
Illustrations
(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the motion is produced without any other act on any person’s part. A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force to Z.
(b) Z is riding a horse. A lashes Z’s horse, and thereby causes it to quicken its pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the horse to change its motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z.
( c) Z is riding a horse. A, intending to cause hurt to Z, seizes the horse and stops it. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his own bodily power. A has therefore used force to Z; and as A has acted thus intentionally without Z"s consent, in order to cause the commission of an offence, A has used criminal force to Z.
(d) A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. He has therefore intentionally used force to Z, and if he has done so without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
(e) A throws a stone, intending or knowing it to be likely that the stone will be thus brought into contact with Z, or with Z’s clothes, or with something carried by Z, or that it will strike water and dash up the water against Z’s clothes, or something carried by Z. Here if the throwing of the stone produces the effect of causing any substance to come into contact with Z, or Z’s clothes, A has used force to Z; and if he did so without Z’s consent, intending thereby to injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
(f) A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil. Here A intentionally uses force to her; and if he does so without her consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used criminal force to her.
(g) Z is bathing. A pours into the bath water which he knows to be boiling. Here A intentionally by his own bodily power causes such motion in the boiling water as brings that water into contact with Z, or with other water so situated that such contact must affect Z’s sense of feeling; A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done this without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force.
(h) A incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z’s consent. Here, if A intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal force to Z.
(i) Deleted by Act 51/2008, wef 01/02/2008.

Assault.
351. Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
Explanation.
Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparations such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
Illustrations
(a) A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z. A has committed an assault.
(b) A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is about to cause the dog to attack Z. A has committed an assault upon Z.
(c) A takes up a stick, saying to Z, “I will give you a beating”. Here, though the words used by A could in no case amount to an assault, and though the mere gesture, unaccompanied by any other circumstances might not amount to an assault, the gesture explained by the words may amount to an assault.

Punishment for using criminal force otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation.
352. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.
Explanation.
Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for an offence under this section, if the provocation is sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for the offence; or
if the provocation is given by anything done in obedience to the law or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; or
if the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to mitigate the offence, is a question of fact.

Using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty.
353. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 years, or with fine, or with both.
Assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to outrage modesty
354. —(1) Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.
(2) Whoever commits an offence under subsection (1) against any person under 14 years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.

Outraging modesty in certain circumstances.
354A. —(1) Whoever, in order to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence against any person under section 354, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to that person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 10 years and with caning.
23/84.
(2) Whoever commits an offence under subsection (1) —
(a) in a lift in any building; or
(b) against any person under 14 years of age,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 years and not more than 10 years and with caning.

Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation.
355. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Assault or criminal force in committing or attempting to commit theft of property carried by a person.
356. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force on any person, in committing or attempting to commit theft of any property which that person is then wearing or carrying, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than 7 years and shall also be liable to caning.
23/84.

Assault or criminal force in attempting wrongfully to confine a person.
357. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting wrongfully to confine that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $3,000, or with both.

Assaulting or using criminal force on grave and sudden provocation.
358. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to $1,000, or with both.
Explanation.
This section is subject to the same explanation as section 352.
Kidnapping, abduction, slavery and forced labour.

Kidnapping.
359. Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from country, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Kidnapping from Country.
360. Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of a country without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from the country.

Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
361. Whoever takes or entices any minor under 14 years of age if a male, or under 16 years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation.
The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
Exception.
This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

Abduction.
362. Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
Punishment for kidnapping.
363. Whoever kidnaps any person from Singapore or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Punishment for abduction
363A. Whoever abducts any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.
Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
364. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, also be liable to caning.
Illustrations
(a) A kidnaps Z from Singapore, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Kidnapping or abducting in order to compel the Government, etc.
364A. Whoever —
(a) kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and
(b) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person,
in order to compel —
(i) the Government to do or abstain from doing any act, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, also be liable to fine or to caning; or
(ii) any other person to do or abstain from doing any act shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person.
365. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage, etc.
366. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or to a life of prostitution, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or to a life of prostitution, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject a person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc.
367. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt or slavery, or to non-consensual penile penetration of the anus, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement a kidnapped person.
368. Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or keeps such person in confinement, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement.
Kidnapping or abducting child under 10 years with intent to steal movable property from the person of such child.
369. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any child under the age of 10 years, with the intention of taking dishonestly any movable property from the person of such child, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Buying or disposing of any person as a slave.
370. Whoever imports, exports, removes, buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains against his will any person as a slave, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Habitual dealing in slaves.
371. Whoever habitually imports, exports, removes, buys, sells, traffics or deals in slaves, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Selling minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.
372. Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of any person under the age of 21 years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.
When a female under the age of 21 years is sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution.
Buying minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.
373. Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any person under the age of 21 years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.
Any prostitute, or any person keeping or managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of a female under the age of 21 years shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution.
Importing by fraud with intent.
373A. Whoever —
(a) by any false pretence, false representation, or fraudulent or deceitful means, brings, or assists in bringing, into Singapore any woman with intent that such woman may be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution;
Importing with intent to sell, etc,.
(b) brings, or assists in bringing, into Singapore any woman with intent that such woman may be sold or bought for the purpose of prostitution; or
or buying or selling.
(c) sells or buys any woman for the purpose of prostitution,
Penalty.
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Unlawful compulsory labour.
374. Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Sexual offences

Rape
375. —(1) Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis —
(a) without her consent; or
(b) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a man who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
(3) Whoever —
(a) in order to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection (1) ––
(i) voluntarily causes hurt to the woman or to any other person; or
(ii) puts her in fear of death or hurt to herself or any other person; or
(b) commits an offence under subsection (1) with a woman under 14 years of age without her consent,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes.
(4) No man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) against his wife, who is not under 13 years of age, except where at the time of the offence —
(a) his wife was living apart from him ––
(i) under an interim judgment of divorce not made final or a decree nisi for divorce not made absolute;
(ii) under an interim judgment of nullity not made final or a decree nisi for nullity not made absolute;
(iii) under a judgment or decree of judicial separation; or
(iv) under a written separation agreement;
(b) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for divorce, nullity or judicial separation, and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded;
(c) there was in force a court injunction to the effect of restraining him from having sexual intercourse with his wife;
(d) there was in force a protection order under section 65 or an expedited order under section 66 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) made against him for the benefit of his wife; or
(e) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for the protection order or expedited order referred to in paragraph (d), and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) (b) for an act of penetration against his wife with her consent.
Sexual assault by penetration
376. —(1) Any man (A) who —
(a) penetrates, with A’s penis, the anus or mouth of another person (B); or
(b) causes another man (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the anus or mouth of A,
shall be guilty of an offence if B did not consent to the penetration.
(2) Any person (A) who —
(a) sexually penetrates, with a part of A’s body (other than A’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of another person (B);
(b) causes a man (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of another person (C); or
(c) causes another person (B), to sexually penetrate, with a part of B’s body (other than B’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of any person including A or B,
shall be guilty of an offence if B did not consent to the penetration.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
(4) Whoever —
(a) in order to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) ––
(i) voluntarily causes hurt to any person; or
(ii) puts any person in fear of death or hurt to himself or any other person; or
(b) commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) against a person (B) who is under 14 years of age,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes.
Sexual penetration of minor under 16
376A. —(1) Any person (A) who —
(a) penetrates, with A’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of a person under 16 years of age (B);
(b) sexually penetrates, with a part of A’s body (other than A’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person under 16 years of age (B);
(c) causes a man under 16 years of age (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of another person including A; or
(d) causes a person under 16 years of age (B) to sexually penetrate, with a part of B’s body (other than B’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of any person including A or B,
with or without B’s consent, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits an offence under this section against a person (B) who is under 14 years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
(4) No person shall be guilty of an offence under this section for an act of penetration against his or her spouse with the consent of that spouse.
(5) No man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) (a) for penetrating with his penis the vagina of his wife without her consent, if his wife is not under 13 years of age, except where at the time of the offence —
(a) his wife was living apart from him ––
(i) under an interim judgment of divorce not made final or a decree nisi for divorce not made absolute;
(ii) under an interim judgment of nullity not made final or a decree nisi for nullity not made absolute;
(iii) under a judgment or decree of judicial separation; or
(iv) under a written separation agreement;
(b) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for divorce, nullity or judicial separation, and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded;
(c) there was in force a court injunction to the effect of restraining him from having sexual intercourse with his wife;
(d) there was in force a protection order under section 65 or an expedited order under section 66 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) made against him for the benefit of his wife; or
(e) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for the protection order or expedited order referred to in paragraph (d), and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded.
Commercial sex with minor under 18
376B. —(1) Any person who obtains for consideration the sexual services of a person, who is under 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Any person who communicates with another person for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) No person shall be guilty of an offence under this section for any sexual services obtained from that person’s spouse.
(4) In this section, “sexual services” means any sexual services involving —
(a) sexual penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person by a part of another person’s body (other than the penis) or by anything else; or
(b) penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of a person by a man’s penis.
Commercial sex with minor under 18 outside Singapore
376C. —(1) Any person, being a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, who does, outside Singapore, any act that would, if done in Singapore, constitute an offence under section 376B, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to the same punishment to which he would have been liable had he been convicted of an offence under section 376B.
Tour outside Singapore for commercial sex with minor under 18
376D. —(1) Any person who —
(a) makes or organises any travel arrangements for or on behalf of any other person with the intention of facilitating the commission by that other person of an offence under section 376C, whether or not such an offence is actually committed by that other person;
(b) transports any other person to a place outside Singapore with the intention of facilitating the commission by that other person of an offence under section 376C, whether or not such an offence is actually committed by that other person; or
(c) prints, publishes or distributes any information that is intended to promote conduct that would constitute an offence under section 376C, or to assist any other person to engage in such conduct,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (c), the publication of information means publication of information by any means, whether by written, electronic, or other form of communication.
(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
Sexual grooming of minor under 16
376E. —(1) Any person of or above the age of 21 years (A) shall be guilty of an offence if having met or communicated with another person (B) on 2 or more previous occasions ––
(a) A intentionally meets B or travels with the intention of meeting B; and
(b) at the time of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) ––
(i) A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence;
(ii) B is under 16 years of age; and
(iii) A does not reasonably believe that B is of or above the age of 16 years.
(2) In subsection (1), “relevant offence” means an offence under ––
(a) section 354, 354A, 375, 376, 376A, 376B, 376F, 376G or 377A;
(b) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38); or
(c) section 140 (1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353).
(3) For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether the 2 or more previous occasions of A having met or communicated with B referred to in subsection (1) took place in or outside Singapore.
(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
Procurement of sexual activity with person with mental disability
376F. —(1) Any person (A) shall be guilty of an offence if —
(a) A intentionally touches another person (B) who has a mental disability;
(b) the touching is sexual and B consents to the touching;
(c) A obtains B’s consent by means of an inducement offered or given, a threat made or a deception practised by A for that purpose; and
(d) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disability.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) If the touching involved —
(a) penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, with a part of the body or anything else; or
(b) penetration of the mouth with the penis,
a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) No person shall be guilty of an offence under this section for any act with that person’s spouse.
(5) For the purposes of this section —
"mental disability" means an impairment of or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain resulting from any disability or disorder of the mind or brain which impairs the ability to make a proper judgement in the giving of consent to sexual touching;
"touching" includes touching —
(a) with any part of the body;
(b) with anything else; or
(c) through anything,
and includes penetration.
Incest
376G. —(1) Any man of or above the age of 16 years (A) who —
(a) sexually penetrates the vagina or anus of a woman (B) with a part of A’s body (other than A’s penis) or anything else; or
(b) penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of a woman (B) with his penis,
with or without B’s consent where B is to A’s knowledge A’s grand-daughter, daughter, sister, half-sister, mother or grandmother (whether such relationship is or is not traced through lawful wedlock), shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any woman of or above the age of 16 years who, with consent, permits her grandfather, father, brother, half-brother, son or grandson (whether such relationship is or is not traced through lawful wedlock) to penetrate her in the manner described in subsection (1) (a) or (b), knowing him to be her grandfather, father, brother, half-brother, son or grandson, as the case may be, shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a man who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years.
(4) If a man commits an offence under subsection (1) against a woman under 14 years of age, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years.
(5) A woman who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years.
Sexual penetration of a corpse
377. —(1) Any man who penetrates, with his penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of a human corpse, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A man who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any person (A) who causes any man (B) to penetrate with B"s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of a human corpse, shall be guilty of an offence if B did not consent to the penetration.
(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Outrages on decency.
377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.
Sexual penetration with living animal
377B. —(1) Any person (A) who —
(a) penetrates, with A’s penis, the vagina, anus or any orifice of an animal; or
(b) causes or permits A’s vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, to be penetrated by the penis of an animal,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any person (A) who —
(a) causes any man (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the vagina, anus or any orifice of an animal; or
(b) causes the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of another person (B) to be penetrated with the penis of an animal,
shall be guilty of an offence if B did not consent to the penetration.
(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Interpretation of sections 375 to 377B (sexual offences)
377C. In sections 375 to 377B ––
(a) penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal;
(b) references to a part of the body include references to a part which is surgically constructed (in particular, through a sex reassignment procedure);
(c) for the purposes of identifying the sex of a person —
(i) the sex of a person as stated in that person’s identity card issued under the National Registration Act (Cap. 201) at the time the sexual activity took place shall be prima facie evidence of the sex of that person; and
(ii) a person who has undergone a sex reassignment procedure shall be identified as being of the sex to which that person has been reassigned;
(d) penetration, touching or other activity is “sexual” if —
(i) because of its nature it is sexual, whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it may be; or
(ii) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual;
(e) “vagina” includes vulva.
Mistake as to age
377D. —(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and notwithstanding anything in section 79, a reasonable mistake as to the age of a person shall not be a defence to any charge of an offence under section 376A (2), 376B or 376C.
(2) In the case of a person who at the time of the alleged offence was under 21 years of age, the presence of a reasonable mistaken belief that the minor, who is of the opposite sex, was of or above —
(a) the age of 16 years, shall be a valid defence to a charge of an offence under section 376A (2); or
(b) the age of 18 years, shall be a valid defence to a charge of an offence under section 376B or 376C.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the defence under that subsection shall no longer be available if at the time of the offence, the person charged with that offence has previously been charged in court for an offence under section 376A, 376B, 376C or 376E, or section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38) or section 140 (1) (i) of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353).