The code states
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty,
is guilty of this offence. it appears from the wording that the reaction of the victim is not an important factor as much as the intent and knowledge of the accused from the wording. in such a case how hard or easy is it to deduce the intention or knowledge ? is circumstancial evidnce enough for something like those or are both direct and circumstancial evidence crucial ?
as a hypothetical
basically a guy got accused of sexually eyeing a girl and he beat her up while asserting dominance, would that guy fall under this law ?
as an alternative example if someone assuaults or uses criminal force on a woman by virtue of them being woman like beating a woman who made fun of a guy because the guy got insulted that a woman made fun of him so he beat the woman.
edit : off topic but in case the intent and/or knowledge is proven , what affirmative defences are possible to the accused ?