1. Landlord-tenant dispute over water connection resulting in alleged assault and framing of charges under Sections 325, 354, and 506 IPC. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1956
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Pramod Kumar Rastogi - Appellant
Versus
Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1312 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4495 of 2018)
Decided On : 29-10-2018
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a charge under Section 354 IPC, the complaint must contain allegations of assault or criminal force used against the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty.
Subject
Criminal Law - Assault and Criminal Force
Act Referred
Headnote
Section 354 IPC - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - The court found that the charge under Section 354 IPC could not have been framed as the complaint did not contain any allegation of assault or criminal force used against the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, was involved in an altercation with the landlord's brother-in-law, leading to a complaint being filed against him under Section 354 IPC. The trial court framed charges against the appellant, which was challenged in the High Court and subsequently in the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the complaint did not contain any allegation of assault or criminal force used against the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty, as required under Section 354 IPC. The court set aside the charge framed under Section 354 IPC.
Issues: The issue was whether there was any material which disclosed even a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 354 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the complaint and subsequent statements of the complainant and other witnesses, finding that the initial complaint did not contain the necessary allegations under Section 354 IPC. The court also noted the lack of discussion on this aspect by the trial court or the High Court.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal partly by setting aside the charge framed under Section 354 IPC, with no order as to cost.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Pramod Kumar Rastogi, Appellant-in-person, for the Appellant; Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. B.V. Balaramdas, Mr. Dhruv Tamte, Advocates and Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR, for the Respondents
Pramod Kumar Rastogi, Appellant-in-person, for the Appellant; Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. B.V. Balaramdas, Mr. Dhruv Tamte, Advocates and Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR, for the Respondents
Table of Contents
2. Whether the available material disclosed a prima facie case for framing a charge under Section 354 IPC. (Para 2 , 6 )
3. Original complaint alleged assault on the nose and foot without intent to outrage modesty; subsequent improvements in statements were unsupported by medical evidence. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Framing a charge under Section 354 IPC requires prima facie material demonstrating assault or criminal force used with the intent to outrage a woman's modesty. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal partly allowed and charge framed under Section 354 IPC set aside. (Para 8 )
6. What is required to frame a charge under Section 354 IPC?
To frame a charge under Section 354 IPC, there must be prima facie material indicating that the accused assaulted or used criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage, or knowing it to be likely that such action would outrage, her modesty. (Para 6 )
7. How are subsequent improvements in witness statements treated when framing charges for outraging modesty?
Improvements in statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that introduce allegations of outraging modesty not found in the initial complaint or FIR, and are unsupported by medical evidence, are insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 354 IPC. (Para 7 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of a medical report in determining the nature of an assault under Section 354 IPC?
A medical report that only confirms injuries to areas such as the nasal bone, without supporting allegations of assault on private parts, can be used to discredit subsequent improvements in witness statements regarding the intent to outrage modesty. (Para 7 )
ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted.
2. On July 27, 2018, this Court issued notice limited to the question as to whether the charge under Section 354 IPC could have been framed. We have heard the counsel for the parties on this limited aspect and proceed to decide the same.
3. The brief factual matrix which needs to be noticed is that the appellant was a tenant under respondent No.3 and was residing in that capacity on the first floor of the tenanted premises i.e. Y-25, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He was inducted as tenant on August 01, 1985. In January, 2005, respondent No.3 initiated eviction proceedings against him under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. According to the appellant, with the filing of the said petition, respondent No.3 also disconnected water supply provided to the appellant which forced the appellant to install the shift plastic water tank at his premises in order to receive water from private contractors. He further claims that the Rent Control Tribunal had directed Delhi Jal Board to provide a temporary water connection in the first floor premises of the appellant at the cost of the appellant. Pursuant to the said order, Delhi Jal Board sanctioned a new water connection on January 02, 2007 in the name of the appellant. In order to have that water connection, the appellant commissioned the feeder pipe to reach the water into first floor premises on January 04, 2007.
4. Thereafter, the incident in question took place on January 05, 2007 for which the appellant has his own version and according to him, it is because of the installation of the aforesaid temporary water connection to the tenanted premises, respondent No.3 got angry and she removed the make shift plastic water tank and rolled it into the street. When the appellant tried to reinstall it, altercation took place and one Pradeep Kudesia, brother-in-law of respondent No.3 attacked the appellant. It is not necessary to state the version of the appellant in detail. Fact remains that as a result of the said incident, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint with the Police inter alia stating as under:
"I am Archana Saxena D/O Ramesh Saxena R/O Y-25, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. I asked the tenant Mr. Pramod Rastogi to remove the water tank from the compound of ground floor of Y-25, Hauz Khas, since it was obstructing the passage of the residents. On this he hit me on the nose with the fist and I fell down and my nose started bleeding. Then he hit me with his foot and I started screaming. This assault was unprovoked and action should be taken against him for assault and injury as per police act."
5. On the said complaint, FIR was registered, matter investigated and charge-sheet filed in the Court of Magistrate on March 31, 2007. Incidentally, the appellant vacated the first floor premises and handed over the vacant possession to the respondent No.3 on February 28, 2010. Arguments were heard on charge and the trial court framed charge against the appellant under Section 325/354/506 IPC on January 08, 2016. The appellant challenged this order of framing charge by filing Criminal Misc. Case No. 4408 of 2017 in the High Court which has been dismissed by the High Court.
6. As stated in the beginning, this Court is concerned with the question as to whether there was any material which disclosed even prima facie case against the appellant was made out under Section 354 IPC. We have already reproduced the version of respondent No.3 in her complaint. In this complaint, she has alleged that the appellant hit her on the nose with the fist and she fell down and her nose started bleeding. Then, he hit her with his foot and she started screaming. This, according to her, was an unprovoked act on the part of the appellant. In this complaint, there is no allegation of any assault or criminal force used against the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty. Section 354 IPC reads as under:
"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-Whoever assaults or use
