Back
2002(1) C.G.L.J. 1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri Fakhruddin, J.
STATE OF CHHAITISGARH - Applicant
Vs.
KEERTAN SINGH - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 4901 of 2001 with Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2001.
Indian Penal Code - Outraging Modesty - 354, 456 - The court discussed the evidence of the case and concluded that the accused's actions attracted the provisions of Sections 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the respondent was convicted for the offenses under Section 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was acquitted of charges under Section 456 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondent entered the complainant's house and attempted to outrage the modesty of a woman. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to previous enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the case, particularly the testimony of a witness, sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the respondent was convicted for the offenses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, the accused's denial of the allegations, and the application of Sections 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Sections 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code based on the evidence presented, emphasizing that intention is not the sole criterion for the offense under Section 354 IPC.
Final Decision: The impugned order of acquittal was set aside, and the respondent was convicted for the offenses under Section 354 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine.
1. The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the order dated 9-11-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 456 and 354.ofthe Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 28-5-1999 at about 2.30 in the night, the respondent entered into the house of complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of PW 2 Sumitra Bai. On the next day report was lodged and 'liter due investigation challan was filed.
3. The accused abjured his guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated.
4. During investigation, the prosecution examined PW 1 Sumitra Bai wife of Shatrughan, PW 2 Sumitra Bai wife of Khikram, PW 3 Ghusiya, PW 4 Anandi Bai, PW 5 Shatrughan, PW 6 Bodhan Singh and PW 7 Padumnath. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. PW 1 Sumitra Bai wife of Shatrughan, PW 3 Pusaiya and PW 4 Anandi Bai did not support the prosecution version and they were declared hostile. PW 5 Shatrughan has also stated that he did not know about the incident.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the State contended that the accused has wrongly being acquitted.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that evidence of PW 2 Sumitra Bai is not reliable. It was submitted that the accused has falsely been implicated, because of previous enmity.
8. The evidence of the case consists of PW 2 Sumitra Bai wife of Khikram. She had stated that the accused entered into the house, took out bulb and thereafter pushed her mouth and pressed her hand. When she shouted, the accused escaped. The report was lodged on the next day without there being any delay. The learned trial Judge has discarded her version on the ground that she has not been able to state as to why the accused caught hold of her hand. The learned trial Court was absolutely not at all justified in discarding her version. The approach is wholly illegal and against the settled principals of law and caused miscarriage of justice. The entry of the accused in the house in the night and thereafter taking out the bulb, catching the hand and pressing the mouth is such which attracts the provisions of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 354 & 456 of the Indian Penal Code are quoted below:
"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 may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
"456. Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night - Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or housebreaking by night, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."
9. The evidence on record of PW 2 Sumitra Bai is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 354 and 456 of Indian Penal Code.
10. This Court is conscious that a judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside unless there are compelling and substantial reasons. It can be set aside if the lower Court's verdict is patently perverse as held by the Apex Court in the case of Toto Singh Vs. State of Punjab I. "Perversity" in this context implies that the verdict of acquittal is one which no reasonable judge could have given. In the present case, the person enters in the house at about 2.30 in the night, after entering takes out the bulb and shuts the mouth of the lady and catches her hand and these acts are sufficient to conclude that it was for outraging the modesty. The acts speak for the mselves and a judge is expected to apply judicial mind while deciding a case and the approach has to be judicious and not capricious. In the instant case, overwhelming evidence has come on record and perversity is writ
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
