ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule, heard finally with consent of parties.

2. This revision is preferred by the applicant/accused, whose conviction under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code has been upheld by the court of Sessions.

3. The facts giving rise to the revision are as follow - On 27/12/2002, complainant Ku.Shubhangi had gone to Vihirgaon. She was coming back with her friends in the evening after the school was over. While they were so coming back, the accused Purushottam and one Narendra came on a motor cycle. Accused Purushottam was driving the motor cycle. He stopped the motor cycle near the complainant and her friends. Accused asked Rakhi Thakre, one of the friends of the complainant, to go ahead. The accused then kept the motor cycle on the stand and caught hold of the hand of the complainant and asked her as to why she does not meet him. She shouted and got her hand released. In the meanwhile, one Bhaiya and Ishwar were seen coming. On seeing them, the accused left the spot and went away. The complainant's father was not at home as he was out of station. Therefore, she could not lodge the report on the same day. After her parents came back home, she lodged report with the police on 30/12/2002. After the investigation was over, chargesheet was filed.

4. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence and found the accused guilty and sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-.

5. The appeal preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision.

6. The scope of revision is very limited. The court is not supposed to reassess the evidence unless it is shown that the approach of the courts below was perverse or that some illegality is committed. There are concurrent findings of the courts below. Bearing in mind this, the revision has to be decided.

7. As stated, the charge is under Section 354 of I.P.Code. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and the defence has examined two. It is in the evidence of PW 1 Shubhangi that on the day of incident she was coming back from school along with her friends when accused stopped her and questioned her as to why she does not meet him and then he caught her hand. If the crossexamination of the witness is seen, it is tried to be suggested to her that there was some love affair between two. This suggestion, in fact, strengthens the version of the complainant. It is, therefore, more probable that the accused must have questioned her as to why she was not meeting him and it is very probable that being annoyed, he caught her hand. The cross-examination has not shaken the credit of the complainant. On the other hand, it is got repeated in crossexamination what has been stated in examination-in-chief. Since what has been stated in examination-in-chief is got repeated, it must be said that the testimony of the complainant almost goes unchallenged. Her two friends Megha and Rakhi (Pws 2 and 3) have fully supported her version.

8. It was contended that PW 1 cannot be relied upon, as she denies falsely that the letters are written by her though PW 2 Megha admits that it is in the handwriting of Shubhangi. This court cannot reappreciate the evidence. If accused wanted to get proved those letters, he ought to have got them examined through the expert. When the complainant denies that they are written by her, it was all the more necessary.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that there was a love affair and, therefore, if the accused caught hand and questioned, that did not amount to outraging the modesty. He contended that the accused could not have an intention to outrage the modesty. The argument has no force. Even when a girl may be loving a boy that does not mean that the boy gets a permit to catch hold of her against her wish. A conservative girl may not like that and may feel offended. Therefore, when a girl feels offended on account of catching her hand, the accused must be held to have outraged her modesty.

10. The accused has ex