JUDGMENT :

S.G. MEHARE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The accused has preferred this revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgments and orders of conviction passed in R.C.C. No. 1490 of 2013 dated 09.01.2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Aurangabad and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by its judgment and order dated 28.02.2022.

3. The applicant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that the incident happened on 04.06.2013 at about 09.00 to 10.30 pm in front of the shop of the victim’s husband. Before the alleged incident, the applicant and other persons were sitting on the platform in front of the grocery shop of the victim’s husband. Since they were creating a mess, he asked them to get up and go. Thereafter, the petitioner said to her husband that they would not get up and they would get up after cutting him. Her husband told the incident to the victim. Then she asked the petitioner why he said so to her husband. Therefore, the petitioner rushed at her and started abusing her. He grasped her hair, pulled her and fell her down and, catching her breast, tore her blouse. He also kicked her with his legs. She screamed; therefore, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and other persons collected there.

5. Both Courts believed the prosecution evidence and held the petitioner guilty. The family members supported the prosecution, but, an independent witness did not support the prosecution. The report was lodged the next day with an explanation that when she was going to lodge the report with her father-in-law, they met with an accident; hence, they returned and the next day she lodged the report.

6. The accused had a defence that the grocery bills were due; hence, the false report was lodged. He also had a defence that there was a dispute over the flag pole roped in front of house of victim.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the defence was probable. However, the Courts did not consider it. No incident as alleged, happened. The incident happened in the spur of the moment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim. None of the offences is proven against him. He would rely on the case of Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 9 SCC 44, Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2004) 4 SCC 371 and Rajesh Swarupchand Kankaria and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, the decision in Criminal Revision Application No. 128 of 2017 with other connected matters of Bombay High Court dated 20.03.2017.

8. Per contra, learned APP would submit that the credibility of the witnesses has not been impeached. The victim had no reason to lie against the accused. The delay explained in lodging the report was not denied. The defence of the accused was improbable. The defence of the accused, implicating him falsely in crime for the amount due for grocery articles, was not proved. Otherwise, also such a defence is unbelievable. The suggestion to PW-1 that after the quarrel was over, the co-accused went to her home and requested not to go to the police station proved the happening of the incident. The evidence of the victim inspires confidence. Hence, the non-examination of the neighbours and not supported by another witness to the prosecution is not fatal. A woman would not put her character at stake unless there was substance in the case. Outraging modesty is a lifelong trauma that causes mental agony forever.

9. Considering the rival contentions, a short point falls for consideration is whether, in given circumstances and proven facts, the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is made