Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 122
High Court of Karnataka
(Circuit Bench At Gulbarga)
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.
Gurulingappa & Another
Versus
Prashanth & Another
Criminal Revision Petition No. 2620 of 2010 c/w Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2010
Decided on : 20-02-2013
For the Appearing Parties:S.S. Mamadapur, Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, K.M. Ghate, Advocates, S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader.
Holding a woman's hand and pulling her can amount to outraging her modesty. Modesty is subjective and can be outraged by looks or signs. The punishment for the offence under Section 354 should be commensurate with the seriousness of the act.
Headnote:
outraging modesty of a woman - IPC Section 354 - The court held that holding a woman's hand and pulling her can amount to outraging her modesty. Modesty is subjective and can be outraged by looks or signs. The punishment for the offence under Section 354 should be commensurate with the seriousness of the act. abetment of suicide - IPC Section 306 - The court set aside the conviction under Section 306 as the evidence did not establish that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide. The court interpreted the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 and concluded that the accused did not instigate or intentionally aid the deceased in committing suicide. compensation to the complainant - Cr.PC Section 352 - The court ordered the accused to pay a fine of Rs.10,000, out of which Rs.9,000 was to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 352 of the Cr.PC. The accused had already deposited Rs.5,000, which was adjusted towards the fine.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's daughter committed suicide after being harassed by the accused. The accused was charged with offences under Sections 354 (outraging modesty of a woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment. The complainant filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the evidence of witnesses and found that the accused had held the deceased by her hand and pulled her, causing her to feel shame and commit suicide. The court held that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, but not under Section 306. The court set aside the conviction under Section 306 and modified the sentence under Section 354.
Ratio Decidendi: The act of holding a woman's hand and pulling her can amount to outraging her modesty. Modesty is subjective and can be outraged by looks or signs. The punishment for the offence under Section 354 should be commensurate with the seriousness of the act.
Result: The accused was held guilty under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000, out of which Rs.9,000 was to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The accused had already deposited Rs.5,000, which was adjusted towards the fine. The bail bond was cancelled after the payment of the balance fine. The revision petition was allowed in part.
(This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying to impose the maximum sentence as prescribed for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 IPC, with heavy fine on the accused/first respondent by suitably modifying the order of sentence dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-2, at Bidar in S.C.No.59/2009.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying to set-aside the order of conviction passed by the Presiding Officer, FTCII, Bidar, in S.C.No.59/2009 dated 7.5.2010, convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 of the IPC and the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.)
1. This revision petition and the appeal are in respect of the very same judgment. The revision petition is filed by the complainant questioning the quantum of punishment and the appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of the trial court.
2. The facts leading up to this petition and the appeal are as follows:-
The complainant Gurlingappa was the father of one Bhagyasheela. It is claimed that on 17.10.2008, the complainant, as usual, went to his land and at about 4 p.m., his daughter had carried tea for him to the land and after serving tea, she returned home. It is claimed that the complainant also returned home at about 5.15 p.m. and he learnt from CW.11 and 12, PWs - 5 and 6, respectively, that when his daughter was returning home, near the land of one Shivaraj Patil, it transpires that the appellant - accused was seen catching hold of her hand and much against her protest, was trying to lead her towards a nearby field, possibly with ill intentions and on noticing that PWs -5 and 6 were also observing them, he had run away from the spot. In the meanwhile, it is stated that Bhagyashree was so consumed with shame on account of the act of the accused, she had rushed to a nearby open well and had jumped into it. Therefore, PWs -5 and 6 brought this information to the complainant. The complainant had rushed to the well, but could not see his daughter, but he had found her chappals lying near the well. It is his case that the accused was clearly responsible for his daughter having jumped into the well. Since she could not be found in the well inspite of his best efforts, the complainant had lodged a case with the jurisdictional police, which was registered as Crime NO.177/2008 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and after further investigation, a charge sheet had been filed against the accused. The case was committed to the Sessions court and thereafter to the Fast-track Court-II, Bidar, who in turn, framed charges against the accused. And since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been tried, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exhibits Ex.P-1 to P-9 and material objects Mos.1 to 3. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC', for brevity) and after hearing the arguments, the court below framed the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 17.10.2008, at about 17.50 hours near the land of Shivraj Patil at Kuntegaon, Taluk Bhalki, the accused with intent to outrage the modesty of Kum. Bhagyasheela, and accused forcibly dragged her and hugged her, against her will and outraged her modesty beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the prosecut
