Report No. 156
Question No. 80
Most of the responses are in the affirmative. However, the Woman Organisation proposed that the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life may be provided under section 376(3) and to substitute the word 'child' for the word 'woman'. The proviso also needs to be deleted.
Question Nos. 81 and 82
Most of the judges, State Law Commission and other persons who responded to our Questionnaire have agreed with the suggestions. However, the woman organisation suggested that the proposed section 376F is similar to the existing section 509, therefore, it may be worded similarly and the term 'eve-teasing' should be deleted.
Question No. 83
Out of eight six judges disagreed with the suggestions and are of the view that the proposed provision will be misused. Out of remaining two one judge is of the view that the provision should be more clearly worded. The State Law Commission has endorsed the view. However, the woman organisation agreed with the suggestion but further suggested a draft of section 376H with four illustrations and four explanations.
Question No. 84
Most of the persons including the State Law Commission supported the proposal under this issue and added that the offence under section 377(c) should continue. The police officer is of the view that the word "voluntarily" may be omitted and the insertion of hand or stick or other object into the womb of a woman may also be brought under this section. However, the woman organisation suggests that the term 'unnatural' should be deleted and the offence of bestiality be provided under section 377.
Question Nos. 85 to 89
These Questionnaires have been affirmatively responded by majority of the persons.
Question No. 90
Six judges and State Law Commission are of the view that section 396 of the Code is clear and it should be retained in the present form.
Question Nos. 91 to 97
Majority of persons including State Law Commission who responded our Questionnaire have agreed with the suggestions.
Question No. 98
Five judges & Addl. Registrar do not favour the substitution of new section for section 441, criminal trespass. Two judges have not given their views, however, Law Commission of Himachal Pradesh fully endorses the view.
Question No. 99 to 117
Most of the persons including the State Law Commission who responded to the Questionnaire have agreed with the suggestions, however, one judge suggested to make the exception more purposeful under the proposed new section 492.
Question No. 118
Only five judges disagreed with the recommendations remaining persons have replied in the affirmative and State Law Commission too.
Question No. 119
Six judges & Addl Registrar agreed with the recommendations one judge has not expressed his opinion. The State Law Commission is not in favour of omission of Chapter XXIII of the Code.