Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY, J.
In Re: Santosh Giri – Appellant
Vs.
C.R.A. No. 211 of 2010
Decided On: 25.06.2012
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prabir Kumar Mitra, Somnath Majumder and Amal Kumar Dutta
For Respondents/Defendant: Partha Pratim Das for the State of W.B.
To constitute an offense under Section 354 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused acted with the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim or with the knowledge that her modesty would be outraged.
Headnote:
OUTRAGE OF MODESTY - SECTION 354 IPC - INTERPRETATION - INTENTIONAL ACT REQUIRED - ASSAULT ALONE NOT SUFFICIENT
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Santosh Giri was convicted under Section 354 of the IPC for allegedly breaking into the quarters of Dinanath Yadav and assaulting his wife Lalbachia Devi with the intent to outrage her modesty. The incident occurred on December 2, 2003, at 8:30 p.m. in the staff quarters of Bonjemari Colliery field.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim. The court noted that the victim's testimony was full of contradictions and embellishments and that there was no corroboration from other witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's actions constituted the offense of outraging modesty under Section 354 of the IPC. 2. Whether the prosecution had established the necessary intent to outrage modesty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that simply causing hurt does not amount to outrage of modesty in the absence of any such intention. The court further held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had any intention to outrage the modesty of the victim.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 354 of the IPC.
Kanchan Chakraborty, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Asansol in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellant Santosh Giri under section 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On 02.12.2003 at about 8.30 p.m., an incident had taken place in the staff quarters of Bonjemari Colliery field. The appellant allegedly broke open the door of the quarters belonging to Dinanath Yadav and entered into the room in his absence with an intention to outrage the modesty of his wife Lalbachia Devi. The appellant also used criminal force and assaulted her. The children of Lalbachia Devi started crying and the appellant left the place after snatching gold necklace from Lalbachia Devi. The local people took Lalbachia Devi to the E.C.L. Hospital. On the basis of one FIR to that effect lodged by Dinanath Yadav on 05.12.2003, Salampur Police Station Case No. 46 of 2003 dated 05.12.2003 under sections 451/354/323/307/379 of the IPC was started and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for prosecuting him under the abovementioned sections. The appellant Santosh Giri was arrayed to face charges under sections 451/354/323/307/379 of the IPC. As he pleaded not guilty to the charges, the trial commenced. The learned Judge, upon consideration of the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the appellant Santosh Giri although did not commit any offence under section 451/323/307/379 of the IPC but, committed the offence under section 354 of the IPC. Accordingly, the learned Court recorded his conviction order and sentence which has been impugned in this appeal.
2. Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the appellant has committed offence under section 354 of the IPC. Simply causing hurt does not amount to outrage of modesty in the absence of any such intention. He contends further that the evidence led by the prosecution is full of contradiction, uncorroboration, embellishment, exaggeration and entirely false.
3. Mr. Mitra contends further that Dinanath Yadav, the husband of the victim, lodged the FIR stating the facts that the appellant entered into the room with an intention to outrage the modesty of his wife. When his wife tried to raise a hue and cry, she was beaten badly. Santosh Giri also throttled the neck of his wife with an intention to kill her. Before he left, Santosh snatched away gold chain and locket of his wife. The neighbourers rushed to the place of occurrence hearing the alarm and took his wife to the hospital where she was treated medically.
4. Mr. Mitra submits that the lodger of the FIR, Dinanath Yadav who happens to be the husband of the victim has denied the facts stated by him in the FIR as P.W. 1. No neighbour has come forward to support the prosecution case. The son of the victim has not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of the Doctor does not indicate that the victim was assaulted in the manner stated by her as P.W. 8. The P.W. 8, the victim was not examined by the I.O. but she has stated that she disclosed everything to the I.O. There are discrepancies in her evidence on material facts which has made the prosecution case not acceptable.
5. Mr. Mitra contends that the impugned judgment is suffering from perversion and is liable to be set aside. Mr. Mitra, in addition to all his submissions, contends that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained at all.
6. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/State of West Bengal contends that when a lady herself came forward in the Court and had given the vivid description of the incident which to some extent supported by her sons and Doctor, no mistake has been caused by the Court to pass the
