IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the intention to outrage a woman's modesty is crucial in determining guilt under Section 354 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

The Appeal:-

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khatra District – Bankura in Session Case No. 2[6] of 2014 in Session Trial no. 2[2] of 2015 whereby convicting the appellant u/s 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and six (6) months and pay fine of Rs. 1000 i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months.

The prosecution:-

2. The defacto complainant/victim lodged the complaint on 01.09.2015 stating therein that:-

“I am Schedule Tribe, last on 07.03.2014 morning approximately at 8.00 A.M. Village’s man Baburam Murmu, Father – Lakshmiram Murmu in front of house, in a lonely place he pulling my hands, he abducted me in a open field. On hearing my shouting three peoples saved my life from the other side of the field. The said Baburam Murmu told me that if expressed to the other peoples I will finished you.”

3. Eight (8) witnesses were examined by the prosecution and documents for the prosecution have been marked Exibit-1 to 6.

4. Both sides have filed their written argument.

The Evidence:-

5. Exhibit 1 is the Written Complaint.

6. Exhibit 2 is the medical report of the victim/de facto complainant aged 40 years. The report has ruled out any incident of forceful sexual intercourse.

7. Exhibit 6 is the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has stated that she was raped by the accused.

8. The accused/Appellant faced trial for offence punishable under Sections 354/376/506 of IPC.

Analysis of Evidence:-

9. Prosecution witness 1 is the alleged victim/de facto complainant, who has stated that she was raped by the Appellant.

10. It appears from the record that she stated about the rape for the first time before the Magistrate while her statement was being recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

11. There is absolutely no allegation of rape in her written complaint which was filed on 10.03.2014, three days after the alleged incident on 07.03.2014.

12. This witness stated in her written complaint that the appellant abducted her and on hearing her shouting three people saved her life.

13. In her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she has alleged rape for the first time and has denied that she shouted at that time.

14. Considering the said contradiction in the written complaint and the evidence including the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and six (6) months and pay fine of Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months.

15. Hence the appeal.

16. From the materials and evidence on record, it is proved that on the date of incident the appellant by pulling the hand of the victim tried to abduct her, when she had been to the field alone to collect potatoes between 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.

17. The delay in filing the FIR has been duly explained by the Learned Trial Judge.

18. Section 354 of IPC, lays down:-

“354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ingredients of offence. -The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 354 are as follows:-

(1) A woman was assaulted or subjected to use of assault criminal force on her; and

(2) The intention of the accused was to outrage her modesty - Vidyadharan v State (2004)1 SCC 215; or

(3) The accused knew that her modesty will be outraged thereby.

In Raja Pandurang v State (2004) 4 SCC 371: AIR 2004 SC 1677: 2004 Cr LJ 1441, the apex court has laid down the essential ingredi