IMPORTANT POINT
Approach that a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be wrong but cannot be applied universally in a case u/s 354 IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 354-Appellant convicted under, while acquitted with other three accused of other charges u/s 323, 504 and 506/34 IPC, by Courts below-Appeal-Complainant victim with her husband was residing tenant in one of the rooms in house of appellant and quarrels used to take place between complainant and her husband on one side and other tenants on the other-Appellant had asked complainant family to vacate tenanted premises-Courts below holding appellant guilty u/s 354 IPC proceeded on a view that no female will put her character at stake to implicate accused falsely-Approach could not be applied universally though might not be wrong-Doctrine of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" though not applicable in India but evidence of such witnesses was to be appreciated keeping in view entirety of situation-Evidence of witnesses should have been accepted with a pinch of salt in view of admitted animosity between parties-Appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt and conviction was liable to be set aside.
       Held : We are not oblivious that the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India but the evidence led by the parties must be appreciated keeping in view the entirety of the situation. The Trial Judge, as noticed hereinbefore, came to the conclusion that most of the statements made by PW-2 and PW-3 were incorrect and no reliance could be placed thereon . The statements of the said witnesses with regard to commission of an offence by the Appellant under Section 354 IPC should have been considered keeping in view the extent of falsity in their statements. PW-2 and PW-3 not only failed to substantiate the allegations as regard commission of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC but also implicated the three persons falsely. The statements of the said witnesses should have been accepted with a pinch of salt and keeping in view the admitted animosity between the parties. (Para 20)
       The High Court, in our considered opinion, should not have refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction on the ground that no question of law had arisen therein inasmuch as in terms of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order may fall for consideration of the Revisional Court and in particular having regard to the fact that the prosecution case should have been tested from the angle that the Trial Judge had acquitted all the three accused persons who are said to have shared a common intention with the Appellant not only in relation to the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code but also in relation to the offence committed by the Appellant under Section 354 thereof. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2004 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 219 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed ex parte.

3. The Appellant herein is a Constable in the State Reserve Police. He was charged for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One Dilip Phadtare was a monthly tenant under the Appellant in one of the rooms in his house situated at Sarpanch Vasti, Dund. It is not in dispute that quarrels used to ensue between other tenants on the one hand and the said Dilip Phadtare and his wife on the other. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant had asked Dilip to vacate the tenanted premises. He was also said to have in search of other premises.

4. His wife Alka Dilip Phadtare is the complainant. On 10.04.1993 at about 5.15 p.m., the Appellant is said to have entered into the said tenanted premises, when Alka (PW-2) was watching a movie in the television with her sons Shivaji and Amol. He enquired about her husband. Alka (PW-2) told him that he was not at home. He thereupon allegedly entered into the room, closed the door and outraged her modesty by embracing her from backside and touched her breasts. At that time PW-3, Dilip came back and found Alka abusing the Appellant. On his questioning as to what had happened; he was assaulted by fists and kicks. The other three accused thereafter also allegedly came there and assaulted both of them Dilip allegedly was also assaulted with stones and bricks.

5. The Appellant and the other three accused persons stood their trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC of the basis of a first information report lodged by PW-2 in relation to the aforementioned alleged incident.

6. The prosecution besides the informant (PW-2) also examined her husband (PW-3) and son, Shivaji (PW-4).

7. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Daund, by a judgment and order dated 25.05.1995 disbelieved the story as disclosed in the First Information Report as regard threatening given to her husband Dilip (PW-3) on the premise that no such allegation was made in her earlier statement. The court also disbelieved the allegation that Alka and her husband were abused by the accused persons. It furthermore negatived the case of the prosecution that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to Alka and her husband. The accused persons were, therefore acquitted of the charges for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Code. However, the Appellant alone was found guilty of commission of the offence of outraging modesty of Alka by the learned Magistrate holding.

"As regards the submission of probability of false implicating of the accused. I find it difficult to digest that a woman will prefer to put her character at streak only in order to take revenge or in order to implicate the accused falsely, particularly when her husband serves in police department. Alka and her husband could have easily made false charge of house trespass, causing of hurt etc. to lodge prosecution and it was not necessary for them to put to streak character of Alka by making false accusations of outraging of modesty by the accused No.1..."

8. On the aforementioned finding, the Appellant was convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A sum of Rs. 500/- was directed to be paid to the complainant Alka by way of compensation, out of the aforementioned amount of fine. The Appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst. By reason of a judgment and order dated 31.08.1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995, the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, dismissed the said appeal. The learned Appellate Court noticed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1594

IMPORTANT POINTApproach that a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be wrong but cannot be applied universally in a case u/s 354 IPC.

IMPORTANT POINT
Approach that a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be wrong but cannot be applied universally in a case u/s 354 IPC.