The culpable intention of the accused and the outrage of a woman's modesty are crucial in determining the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. Petitioners Paras Nath Bhagat, Bhikhari Bhagat have challenged the judgment dated 13.08.1999 passed by Sri Chandrashekhar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura in G.R. No.433 of 1996 holding the petitioner Paras Nath Bhagat guilty for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and directed him to undergo R.I. for one year while petitioners Paras Nath Bhagat and Bhikhari Bhagat both have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323, 447 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them were directed to undergo R.I. for six months as well as R.I. for three months respectively with a direction to run the sentences concurrently against which Cr. Appeal No.37 of 1999 was filed which was disposed of vide judgment dated 18.09.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura dismissing the same.

2. Informant, Jugeshwari Devi (P.W.-4) had furnished written report (Ext.-1) on 05.05.1996 at about 08:30 P.M. alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 06:00 P.M. her elder daughter Rita Devi while was walking at her Darwaja, accused Paras Nath Bhagat began to sing obscene song which was resisted by Rita Devi. On account thereof, Paras Nath Bhagat caught hold her ‘Aanchal’ and pulled it over which she raised alarm attracting her younger daughter Renu Devi and son Vishwajit aged about 12 years who were assaulted by Paras Nath Bhagat and Bhikhari Bhagat with lathi. She also rushed and was assaulted, during said course causing injury over her head as well as left hand. Her daughter Renu Devi had also sustained severe injury. During push and pull the broken bangle pierced in the hand of Rita Devi.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report (Exhibit-1) Madheprua P.S. Case No. 100 of 1996 was registered whereupon investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge sheet and on the basis thereof, the trial commenced and concluded in a manner which has also been concurred during appellate stage, hence this revision.

4. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court as well as judgment of concurrence by the appellate court, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that defence of the petitioners relating to land dispute amongst the parties has been accepted by the Rita Devi, P.W.-1 (Para-23) as well as Jugeshwari Devi, the informant (PW-4) under para-10 and in the aforesaid background, the learned successive courts should have held that petitioners have been falsely implicated on account thereof. It has further been submitted that doctor has not been examined in this case. It has also been submitted that the learned courts below failed to scrutinize the evidence in its right perspective and on account thereof, the interest of the petitioners are found to be completely jeopardized. It has also been submitted that the learned Appellate Court should have considered that petitioner Paras Nath Bhagat happens to be a retired Army personnel and the litigation is running since 1996 and so would have taken lenient view at least giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in the background of the fact that none of the petitioners carry criminal antecedent.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the concurrent finding of the courts below submitted that because of the fact that the learned lower court had minutely scrutinized the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, consequent thereupon no interference is required at the revisional stage. It has also been submitted that offence has been committed against female therefore needs no interference even in the sentence.

6. Gone through the successive lower court records. It is true that doctor who had examined the victims has not been examined and the injury report has been proved by Dr. Uma Shankar Bhagat (P.W.-6). The aforesaid deficiency had already been taken into account by the learned trial court whereunder charge under Se