2008 Supreme(SC) 1407

2008(6) Supreme 596
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Premiya @ Prem Prakash — Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 2008
(Arising out of (SLP (Crl.) No.7428 of 2007)
Decided on : 22-09-08

Important PointS
Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act modesty of woman is likely to be affected.
Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Prosecution of appellant for committing rape on victim-Conviction by trial Judge relying on evidence of victim and PW-2 an eye witness – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal thereagainst – No unexplained delay in lodging the FIR- So far as absence of injury on private parts of the prosecutrix was concerned, admittedly she was a married lady – But on a close reading of evidence of prosecutrix, it was clear that accused outraged modesty but had not raped her – Prosecutrix not stated specifically about the act, but loosely described it as “fondling” – Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act modesty of woman is likely to be affected – Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects – The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed – A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight – In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial court and the High Court found the accused guilty – But the offence was Section 354 IPC – Conviction of accused hence altered from Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC – Appeal allowed. (Paras 9, 12 to 15)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 354 – Scope and ambit of – In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object – There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases – A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty – The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are that the person assaulted must be a woman; that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. (Para 12)

       (AIR 1967 SC 63) – Relied upon.

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 228-A – Section 228-A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable – Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished – True it is, the restriction, does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court – But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it is held appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. (Para 3)

       2003 (8) Supreme 364, 2006 (3) SCC 771 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

       1.Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for committing rape on victim. Trial Judge convicted appellant relying on evidence of victim and PW-2 an eye witness. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       There was no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. So far as absence of injury on private parts of the prosecutrix was concerned, admittedly she was a married lady. But on a close reading of evidence of prosecutrix, it was clear that accused outraged modesty but had not raped her. Prosecutrix not stated specifically about the act, but loosely described it as “fondling . In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial court and the High Court found the accused guilty. But the offence was Section 354 IPC. Conviction of accused was hence altered from Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC.

       Result : Appeal allowed.