The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of determining the offense of outraging modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. By this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, in Criminal Case No.215/S/2011-C by which, instead of sentencing, the petitioner was released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, inter alia directing him to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- under Section 5 of the said Act to the complainant. An appeal bearing No.86/2013 preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) on 19.4.2014.

2. A few facts can be summarised thus:-

Prosecutrix was aged about 55 years at the time of incident. She alleged that on 27.10.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., she noticed the petitioner arguing and hitting a Worker namely Krishna - PW 5 and that her guest PW 4 - Barbara Hill, a British National, was about to intervene when the petitioner also tried to hit Barbara, at that time the prosecutrix intervened, however, the petitioner during that incident touched her left breast. The prosecutrix pushed him aside. She, therefore, lodged a report with Calangute Police Station on the same day by stating that the petitioner had outraged her modesty. Undisputedly, the petitioner and the prosecutrix are neighbours, who are on cross-terms due to some other reasons. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen residing in Villa No.5, Sun Park Resort and the prosecutrix residing in Villa no.4, Sun Park Resort, Calangute. After charge-sheeting him, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class having gone through the evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, by the impugned judgment convicted the petitioner, but, instead, released him on probation.

3. Both the Courts below conclusively held that the petitioner had outraged modesty of the prosecutrix in the light of the fact that there is acceptable evidence and there was previous enmity between them. The Courts below relied upon the testimonies of PW 4 – Barbara, PW 5 - Krishna, which found corroborated by the evidence of PW 6 - Dr. Dilip Kuncolienkar, who had opined about the injury in the form of a bruise over the left breast of the prosecutrix.

4. I have heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. The main thrust of the learned counsel is that though the hand of the petitioner touched the left breast of the prosecutrix yet, he had absolutely no intention nor knowledge of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix. It was during a sudden push when his hand inadvertently touched that part of the body of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel took me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses in order to demonstrate as to how there are discrepancies and improvements made by the witnesses.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, Shri Rivankar, has strongly supported the impugned judgments by contending that it is not an accidental act, but a deliberate one by which, the petitioner had not simply touched the left breast of the prosecutrix, but pressed it, which found full corroboration from the testimony of the medical expert. In support of his submissions, learned Public Prosecutor has pressed into service two case laws namely (i) Kanwarpal S. Gill Vs. State (admn., U.T.Chandigarh) Thro' Secy., & Anr. reported in 2005(5) Supreme 218; and (ii) Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2004(2) Supreme 234.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on (i) Ram Das Vs. State of W.B. Reported in 1954 0 AIR (SC) 711; and (ii) Rajesh Swarupchand Kankaria and ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 20117 0 Supreme (Mah) 327.

8. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that the petitioner is invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the Courts below, which had concurred with the findings of conviction. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdictio