Things You Should Know About Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013

Do you want to know about the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013? Then, read this article to learn about the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013.

Introduction

The medical student, who was twenty-three, was viciously sexually assaulted by a gang on a bus ride on December 16, 2012, and left comatose in the middle of the road. Every state in the union was rocked by this occurrence, which sparked enormous indignation and protests. It forced the authorities to reconsider how effective the present legal protections for women’s safety are. The Committee, led by Justice J.S. Verma, was established by the government to examine the laws about sexual offences and provide suggestions for enhancing the existing system. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was passed by the Committee and was ratified by the President on April 2, 2013. The Indian Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the Evidence Act 1860, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 are the four laws that are amended by this act.

Explanation Behind Change in the Act

Nirbhaya Case (Mukesh and Anr v. State [Nct of Delhi] and Ors)

Facts of the Case

After seeing the movie Life of Pi that evening on December 16, 2012, the victim and her friend were on their way home. When they got off the bus at Munirka Bus Stand, they boarded an off-duty charter bus with six other guys, including the bus driver, after viewing the movie. The guys closed the doors of the bus, which was headed for Dwarka-Palam Road and had the words YADAV printed on it in addition to yellow and green lines or stripes. However, the bus began travelling in an abnormal direction. A bewildered altercation ensued as the inebriated guys began abusing the victim, and when the victim’s buddy brought up an obligation, he was yelled down because of his suspicions. The guys carried the girl to the rear of the bus and gang-raped her for nearly an hour after knocking down the victim’s companion with an iron rod. One of the young assailants pulled and tore the victim’s intestines apart while the victim struggled back and pushed an iron rod into her private area. After the attack, the bus driver drove the vehicle across Delhi while this was going on, throwing the two out to die by the side of the road. A bystander saw the victim and his buddy partially dead along the road, and they notified the Delhi Police. As soon as the cops arrived, the woman was brought to Safdarjung Hospital, where medical professionals discovered that just 5% of her intestinal tract remained in her body. On December 29, 2012, the victim was unable to withstand her injuries and passed away at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore due to sepsis and multiple organ failure as a result of severe traumas. The victim said in her Dying Declaration that she wanted the six attackers—Ram Singh, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma, and the juvenile—to face justice.

Charges Framed on the Accused

All of the defendants were charged with the following offences once the case was brought before the Court of Session. Among the offences are:

Penalties for criminal conspiracy as stated in Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code: Any individual involved in a criminal conspiracy that aims to carry out an offence that carries a death sentence, life in prison, or a rigorous two-year or longer sentence will face the same penalties as if they had committed the offence themselves. Anyone who participates in a criminal conspiracy other than those already listed faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail, a fine, or maybe both.
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code discusses kidnapping or abduction with the intent to confine someone secretly, unfairly, or wrongfully. A person found guilty of kidnapping or abducting someone with the intent to confine them secretly, unfairly, or wrongfully faces up to seven years in prison as well as possible fines.
As stated in Section 366 IPC, kidnapping, abduction, forcing a woman into marriage, etc., are crimes for which a person may be imprisoned for up to ten years in either situation if the victim has the intention of forcing her into marriage against her will or of coercing or seducing her into having illicit sexual relations. Fines may also be incurred.
As stated in Section 307, a murder attempt is defined as any action taken with the intent to commit murder and under circumstances that could lead to a conviction for the crime; such an individual may be sentenced to either type of imprisonment for a maximum of ten years, in addition to fines.
According to Section 376(2)(g) IPC, gang rape is defined as the sexual assault of a woman by one or more members of a group acting in support of their shared goal. They will face harsh incarceration for a term of ten years, with the possibility of an extended stay of life, as well as penalties. However, for certain, justifiable circumstances, the court may impose a term of less than 10 years in jail.
Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code defines dacoity with murder as follows: if five or more people who commit dacoity together also commit murder during the dacoity, each of those individuals faces a life sentence or the death penalty, or they may be seriously imprisoned for up to ten years, in addition to paying fines.
The punishment for murder is outlined in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A murderer faces either life in prison or the death penalty in addition to penalties.
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code outlines the punishment for dacoity. The maximum sentence for a person convicted of dacoity is 10 years in jail or life in prison, in addition to penalties.
Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code defines robbery and dacoity with the intent to cause death or grievous injury. If the perpetrator uses a deadly weapon during the robbery or dacoity to cause grave harm to any person or to attempt to cause death or grave injury to any person, they will be sentenced to a minimum of seven years in prison.
Give false information to screen criminals as specified in Section 201 IPC, or cause evidence of an offense to vanish. To shield the perpetrator from punishment by the law, someone who knows or has reason to think that an offence has been committed may destroy evidence of the offence. If the offence carries a death sentence, the perpetrator faces a seven-year jail sentence of either kind in addition to a fine. In addition to three years in jail of any kind and fine or other penalties, the offender faces life in prison if the offence carries such a penalty.
Unfairly receiving property taken during the commission of dacoity, as defined by Section 412 IPC: Anyone who dishonestly accepts or possesses any stolen property and suspects that it may have been obtained during the commission of dacoity faces a life sentence or a rigorous term of imprisonment that may extend to ten years, in addition to fines.

Judgement of the case

In its ruling, the Court found four of the six defendants guilty of the specified offences. The death penalty was imposed on the convicted individuals. When Ram Singh, the accused, committed suicide during the trial, the case was dropped. After a separate trial conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, the minor involved in the case was found guilty and given a three-year sentence to a reformation home. Because there were more aggravating circumstances in this case than mitigating ones, the Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty that the High Court had approved. The court also rejected every one of the accused’s appeals. The Court, taking into consideration the seriousness and heinousness of how the crime was perpetrated, classified this case as one of the “rare of the rarest,” a concept first introduced in the 1980 case of Bacchan v. State of Punjab.

Justice Verma Committee

In the aftermath of this incident, the government established the Committee under the leadership of Justice J.S. Verma to investigate necessary changes to the criminal code that would strengthen laws protecting women and add other elements that were necessary given the increase in crimes against women. It was established on December 23, 2012, to complete the Committee Report within 30 days, given the pressing timeframe required by the Nirbhaya case. The primary objective of this Committee was to suggest modifications to the penal code that would enable prompt trials in cases, particularly those involving crimes against women.

Key recommendations of the committee

On January 23, 2013, the Committee turned in its report. policies about rape, sexual harassment, human trafficking, child sexual abuse, victim medical examinations, law enforcement, and educational and electoral changes were among the policies it recommended. The Committee’s main recommendations are summed up as follows:

Rape: The Committee suggested that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) continue to constitute the legal framework for the classification of sexual offences. The Committee believed that sexual assault and rape are acts of power as well as crimes of passion. Rape needs to be recognized as a distinct crime and not restricted to penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina. Any non-consensual sexual intercourse needs to be covered under the concept of rape. The IPC distinguishes between rape that occurs outside a marriage and within a marriage. Sexual relations without permission are forbidden by the IPC. On the other hand, unconsented sexual relations between a husband and wife are not considered a crime of rape. The Committee suggested eliminating the exception for marital rape. It is incorrect to view marriage as an unchangeable agreement to sexual behaviour. Therefore, the connection between the victim and the accused should not be relevant for determining whether the complaint permitted the sexual conduct.
Sexual assault: As of right now, Section 354 of the IPC imposes a two-year jail sentence for “assault or use of criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.” The IPC contains no definition for the phrase “outraging a woman’s modesty.” Accordingly, in cases where penetration cannot be demonstrated, the offence is classified as specified in Section 354 of the IPC. The Committee made the recommendation that sexual assault should be applied to non-penetrative types of sexual contact. Any type of non-consensual, non-penetrative touching that is sexual should be included in the definition of sexual assault. An act’s sexual character should be assessed in light of the surrounding conditions. It shouldn’t be necessary to prove the crime to demonstrate that the act was motivated by sexual pleasure. A five-year jail sentence, a fine, or both should be applied to the offence. Three to seven years in jail should be the penalty for using illegal force to undress a lady.
Verbal sexual assault: As of right now, Section 509 of the IPC imposes a one-year jail sentence, a fine, or both for using words or gestures to “insult a woman’s modesty.” It is necessary to abolish this provision. The Committee has proposed that sexual assault be defined as the use of words, deeds, or gestures that constitute an unwanted threat of a sexual nature and be punished by up to a year in jail, a fine, or both.
Sexual harassment: The following are some of the main suggestions put out by the Committee on the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012, which is now being debated in Parliament: Included in the Bill’s scope should include domestic workers. The first step in the Bill’s requirements for the complainant and responder is conciliation. This runs counter to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, which sought to provide women with a safe workplace. The lady who was the victim of sexual harassment should receive compensation from the employer. The employer is required by the bill to establish an internal complaints body, to which grievances must be submitted. An Employment Tribunal should be established to hear all complaints and make decisions since this would contradict the aim of the Bill by creating an internal committee.
Acid attack: According to the Committee, the offence should not be included in the IPC’s definition of grave harm, which carries a seven-year jail sentence. It was mentioned that the Criminal Laws Amendment Bill, 2012, which is presently being debated in Parliament, addressed the offence. The Bill stipulates that the penalty may be life in prison or ten years in jail. It was suggested that a corpus be established by the federal and state governments to provide compensation to victims of crimes against women.
Crimes against women in war zones: It is necessary to reevaluate the application of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in these regions. Currently, the AFSPA needs the central government’s approval before any legal action against members of the military services may be taken. The Committee has suggested that when a sexual offence is suspected, the necessity of sanction for prosecution of members of the armed services should be expressly removed. Witness protection must be provided to victims of sexual assault. In places of conflict, special commissioners ought to be created to keep an eye out for and prosecute sexual offences. The focus of armed personnel’s training should be redirected to emphasize the need to strictly adhere to commands in this respect.
The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, of 1956, only made trafficking for prostitution illegal, so the Committee observed that it did not provide a complete definition of trafficking. The proposal was made to modify the IPC’s slavery laws to make human trafficking by coercion, intimidation, or threats illegal. Additionally, it advocated making hiring a victim of human trafficking illegal. The victims should be assisted in reintegrating into society, and the juvenile and women’s protection institutions should be put under the legal supervision of High Courts.
Child sexual abuse: The Committee has suggested that, under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, the terms “harm” and “health” be defined to cover, respectively, the juvenile’s bodily and mental harm and health.
The Committee dismissed the chemical castration suggestion as a form of punishment for crimes against women because it did not address the societal roots of rape. As there was ample proof that the death sentence did not discourage major crimes, it was argued that the death penalty should not be applied to rape offences. For rape, it suggested a life sentence.
A rape victim’s medical examination: The Committee has suggested that the two-finger test, which measures how loose the vaginal muscles are, be discontinued. Based on several rulings, the Supreme Court has ruled that the victim’s prior sexual history cannot be used to infer the victim’s consent or the quality of the consent that the victim gave. It is also against using the two-finger test.
Police reforms: The Committee has suggested several measures for improving the police. One of these is the creation of State Security Commissions, which are meant to prevent state governments from influencing the state police. Either the state’s home minister or chief minister should serve as the chair of these commissions. To ensure that the Police follow the law, the Commission would establish broad policy guidelines. To deliberate on all officer transfers, postings, and promotions, a Police Establishment Board ought to be set up. A minimum of two years should pass between the positions of Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police.

Key changes made after the Amendment Act in 2013

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Following the Criminal Amendment of 2013, the following numerous provisions were added to or changed in the Indian Penal Code:

Acid attack

In the wake of the 2015 Laxmi v. Union of India case, which involved an acid assault on a sixteen-year-old girl, these provisions were introduced to the Code. It became clear after this tragedy that strict laws were required to combat the aforementioned offence. An act of throwing acid or attempting to throw acid was included as a basis under Section 100, which expanded on the “right to private defence.” In the event of an acid assault, it implies that a person can now exercise their right to private defence. Section 326A and Section 326B, two new provisions, were added. The offence of “acid attack” is defined by Section 326A as a minimum term of 10 years in prison, which may be extended to life, together with a fee. On the other hand, the offence of “attempting to throw acid” is defined by Section 326B as a minimum term of 5 years, which can be extended to 7 years in jail, along with a fine.

Sexual offences

Because the number of sexual harassment cases in the nation is on the rise, this Amendment included four new sexual offences. These are.

Sexual Harrasement (Section 354A): Acts like as requesting sexual favours, making physical contact, and a guy showing a woman pornography are all included in this section. A guy may face harsh incarceration for up to three years in response to these offences. It also includes comments made to women in a sexually suggestive manner, which is punishable by up to a year in jail.
Assault (Section 354B): According to this section, attacking or threatening a woman by using criminal force to make her undress or compel her to be in her underwear is punishable by a minimum of three years in jail, with a maximum sentence of seven years, as well as a fine.
Voyeurism (Section 354C): “An act of gaining pleasure from watching others naked or engaged in sexual activity” is the exact definition of the word “voyeurism.” Any such activities by a male are penalized by this section by a minimum of one year in jail, with a maximum sentence of three years, as well as a fine. It may also refer to seeing or photographing a lady while she is having a private conversation. If a man is found guilty of the same crime more than once, he faces a minimum sentence of three years in jail and a maximum sentence of seven years.
Stalking (Section 354D): The actions of tracking or making contact with a woman who has already demonstrated her disinterest in a guy, as well as keeping an eye on her usage of email, the internet, and other electronic communication tools, are included in this section. Any guy who engages in this behaviour faces a maximum sentence of three years in jail. For repeat offenders, the maximum sentence is five years in prison along with a fine. There are several exceptions to this offence, meaning that if the man can demonstrate that his actions were acceptable and justifiable, or if the State tasked him with preventing or discovering the crime, they won’t be considered “stalking.”
Rape: The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 broadens the definition of the crime of “rape” to impose heavier penalties for more serious offences. Additionally, it expanded the definition of “rape” under Section 375 to include some non-penetrative activities, such as oral sex, and the act of introducing any item or other part of the body into the body of a woman. Although the penalty for the crime of “rape” under Section 376 has not been increased, it was later raised to a minimum of 10 years in prison, with the possibility of a life sentence, after the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2018. But this 2013 Amendment has strengthened the penalties and introduced provisions for more serious types of rape, such as:

Section	Offence	Punishment
Section 376A	resulting in the woman’s death or keeping her in a prolonged vegetative state	a minimum of 20 years of strict incarceration, with the possibility of an extension to life in prison for the duration of the offender’s sentence or death.
Section 376B	Husband engaging in sexual activity when they were apart	a minimum two-year sentence that might be increased to seven years in jail, as well as a fine.
Section 376C	Having sex with someone in a position of power (a public worker, a fiduciary, the authorities in a penitentiary, an institution for women and children, or hospital officials)	severe imprisonment for a least of five years, with a maximum term of ten years, as well as a fine.
Section 376D	Gang Rape (more than two persons involved)	severe jail conditions for a minimum of 20 years, with the possibility of life imprisonment for the duration of a person’s life.
Section 376E	Repeated Offenders	Life in jail for the balance of a person’s life sentence or execution.

Provision for the authorities

To hold authorities, such as public officials or hospital authorities, accountable if they neglect to carry out their obligations against the victims of the crime, Sections 166A and 166B were added following the change.

If a public worker disregards legal instructions, fails to undertake an inquiry when necessary, or, in particular, fails to file a First Information Report (FIR) in cases of sexual offences as defined by Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they may be held accountable under Section 166A. A minimum term of six months in jail, with the possibility of two years imprisonment, as well as a fine, would be inflicted on any such public official.
According to Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hospital administration and employees are also held accountable under Section 166B if they fail to give the victim of a sexual offence appropriate care at no cost, including first aid. The hospital’s status as a public or private facility made no difference. A jail sentence of up to one year, a fine, or both might be imposed for any such violation.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been modified by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 to accommodate new provisions added to the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure that were inserted into the Indian Penal Code, as well as to create a more welcoming environment for women conducting investigations, trials, and examinations. The following are some significant modifications made to the Code:

Relief measures for the victims of sexual offences

Sections 154, 161, and 164: The original text of Sections 154 and 161 was changed to add the requirement that only female police officers record victim accounts. Furthermore, Section 154 stipulates that if the victim is physically or mentally incapacitated, the recording of statements must be done in a comfortable location, such as their home, with the assistance of a special educator or interpreter, and the video recording must be made for the victim’s comfort. The provisions for video recording of the statements and the help of a special educator or interpreter were also added by Section 164. It further decided that the statements made under Section 164 would be regarded as statements made in place of a main examination that would be subject to cross-examination at the trial.
Section 273: This section was modified to include a requirement for the court to take necessary action to ensure that victims of sexual offences and women under the age of sixteen are not faced by the accused while preserving the accused’s right to cross-examine.
Section 357C: This clause was inserted to mandate that hospitals, whether public or private, treat victims of sexual offences at no expense to them and promptly notify the police authorities of the situation.

Measures taken to make the provision more strict

Section 197: This section states that to prosecute judges, magistrates, or other public workers for whatever offences they may have committed while doing their official duties, the government must provide its approval. The “explanation” included by this amendment to this section states that public officers, magistrates, and judges may be prosecuted for sexual offences without first receiving approval from their respective governments.
Section 309: The clause that mandates that all investigation or trial-related processes be finished within two months of the date of the charge sheet in instances involving sexual offences was added to Clause (1) of this section.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The following significant clauses were either added to or changed in the Act following the Amendment:

Exclusions of previous sexual experiences in evidence

Section 53A of the Act was included and states that if a victim is prosecuted for sexual offences, the victim’s past sexual history or character will not be taken into consideration as proof of the victim’s permission, nor the amount of such consent.

Presumption of the absence of permission

With the addition of Section 114A to the Act, it is now necessary for the victim of a sexual offence to testify in court that she did not consent to the sexual encounter for the absence of consent to be presumed in that particular case.

Nature of the questions asked in cross-examination

Section 146 of the Act was amended to include a clause stating that victims of sexual offences cannot be asked questions during cross-examination that are immoral or that pertain to their prior sexual experiences to establish or verify their consent or to test the veracity of their consent.

Provision for the dumb witnesses

Section 119 permits witnesses who are incapable of speaking to testify orally to do so in writing, by signs, or in other ways. These methods are considered oral evidence, and the witnesses must be assisted by a special educator or interpreter. The statements made by these witnesses will also be recorded on video.

Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

This Act’s Section 42 was amended to state that the offender shall receive the punishment specified by this Act or the Indian Penal Code, which imposes harsher penalties for offences of this nature if the offence was committed under the POCSO Act and the same offence is also punishable under provisions about sexual offences in the Indian Penal Code.

Difference between the recommendations made by the committee and the changes made by the criminal Amendment Act, 2013

The Committee believes that imposing a “death sentence” on those who commit sexual offences such as rape, gang rape, etc. would not serve as a deterrence to society and does not propose this course of action. On the other hand, the Act stipulated that repeat offenders and victims of severe kinds of rape, such as those that result in the victim’s death or demise, may face the punishment of a “death sentence.”
The Committee suggested that “marital rape,” or when a husband has sexual relations with his wife without her consent, be made a crime. However, it is not made illegal by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 disapproves of the Committee’s recommendation that candidates who are accused of sexual offences should not be allowed to run for office.
The Committee’s recommendation that top police and army officers be held accountable for sexual offences committed by their juniors was similarly turned down by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013.
Although the Committee recommended including protections for sexual attacks against men, transgender people, or homosexuals, the Amendment Act did not include such language.

Criticisms of the amendment

Not a Gender Neutral Law: The Committee urges the addition of measures that would offer redress to victims of sexual assault who are male, transgender, or homosexual in light of the recent incidents of such crimes. However, this suggestion was turned down. It was said that the criminal law was exclusively focused on women. Crimes against communities other than women were not included in it. The situation was different from how the legislation currently reads, which labels only males as offenders and only women as victims. In the UK, the Ministry of Justice produced research stating that, out of the 473,000 individuals who experience sexual offences annually on average, around 404,000 are women and 72,000 are men. Despite these developments, gender neutrality is not provided by this Amendment in the relevant laws’ provisions.
Non-inclusion of Provision for Marital Rape: The fact that this Amendment does not make “marital rape” a crime, despite the Committee’s recommendation to that effect, was also criticized. There is an exemption to Section 375 that says that a husband having sex with his wife as long as she is not younger than 15 does not constitute rape. This clause has the effect of shielding from culpability any husband who compels his wife to engage in sexual activity against her will. Consequently, several jurists advocate for the repeal of this exemption, which this Amendment does not do. “The fact that the rapist is the victim’s husband does not make the act of sexual assault any less injurious, degrading, or dehumanizing,” Justice Shakdhar of the Delhi High Court says in his ruling on the matter of marital rape. Forced sex harms the woman-victim physically, mentally, and emotionally regardless of who does it.
No Entry of Politicians Charged with Sexual Offences: Although the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 does not contain such restrictions, the Committee’s suggestion does include a clause that would prohibit candidates charged of sexual offences from running for office under the Representation of People Act, 1951. Several candidates have been accused of significant offences, according to recent data from the affidavits of those running for office in the states of Goa, Punjab, and Uttarakhand. In Punjab, five people were charged with insulting women’s modesty, while two were accused of rape crimes. Four people in Uttarakhand were accused of outraging a woman’s modesty, while one person was accused of rape. In the same way, five cases in the state of Goa were deemed to have offended women’s modesty, and one was officially reported as a rape.

Other Amendments to Criminal Law

Criminal Law (amendment) Act, 2018

About the criminal laws, this amendment includes additional requirements that were necessary in light of previous events and tightens the rules even further. The Indian Penal Code now includes the following new provisions:

Section 376AB	rape of a girl who is younger than twelve	severe incarceration for a least 20 years, with the possibility of an extension to life in prison for the duration of the offender’s sentence or death.
Section 376DA	girl under 16 being raped by a gang	A fine and life in jail for the rest of the offender’s days are also required.
Section 376DB	gang rape of a girl younger than twelve	a fine or the death penalty, as well as life in jail for the balance of the offender’s life.

Furthermore, the most significant modification brought about by this Amendment was raising the minimum sentence for rape offenders from 7 years to 10 years, with the possibility of an extension to life in prison and a fine under Section 376.

Conclusion

The treatment of women in a country is a good indicator of its level of development, according to Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda. It implies that the nation that shields women from such horrible atrocities and fosters an atmosphere that allows them to fulfil their goals and desires would be seen as the most advanced. The fact that industrialized nations with substantially lower incidence of crimes against women include Canada, Singapore, Norway, Spain, and so on, makes this clear. Conversely, according to the World Population Review 2022, India is the seventh most perilous country for women globally. It illustrates how the existing system has to undergo some more reforms.

The Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 has undoubtedly become a groundbreaking amendment in the realm of women’s safety, offering a range of protections to women against sexual offences and acid assaults. However, it is insufficient to stop the growing number of crimes against women. To address the severity and alarming rise in crimes against women, such as sexual offences using the use of technological devices, more revisions are required. To implement these improvements, offer tougher penalties for criminals, and provide more conducive conditions for victims, India must continue to amend its many legislation and institutions. Then and only then can the aspiration of a better India for women can be achieved.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

1. Using the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, which legislation was modified?

The 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act modifies the following four laws:

1860, the Indian Penal Code
1973’s Code of Criminal Procedure
Both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act of 2012 and the Evidence Act of 1860

2. What was the context for the enactment of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013?

The Nirbhaya Gangrape case, which occurred in Delhi on the evening of December 16, 2012, was a backdrop for the enactment of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

3. After the Nirbhaya case, a committee was established to examine if the penal code needed to be amended. Who was the committee’s chairman?

On December 23, 2012, a committee led by Justice J.S. Verma was established to recommend necessary changes to the penal code.

4. Which sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013 were added to the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Major new sections following the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013 were added to the Indian Penal Code, 180 and were as follows:

Parts 326A and 326B of the legislation address acid attacks.
Parts 354A, 354B, 354C, and 354D of the law address new sexual offences.
Modifications to Sections 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, and 376E that deal with rape.

5. What are the main objections to the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment Act?

The following are the main objections against the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013:

No law that is gender-neutral
Exclusion of clauses about marital rape
Politicians accused of sexual offences are not barred.

Hope now you know about Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 if you have any doubts regarding then consult the best criminal lawyer in bangalore here.