Back
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Arvind Kumar – Appellant
Vs.
State of Chattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2015
Decided On : 11.3.2015
Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 341 and 323 - appellant guilty of commission of offence - judgment of conviction - simple imprisonment - no clear evidence - Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the allegation of commission of offence of outraging modesty was not proved from the testimony of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1. He submits that though, the prosecutrix has stated regarding hurling of abuses and slapping, that by itself would not satisfy the ingredients of commission of offence under Section 354, IPC, as there is no clear evidence to prove that whatever was done by the applicant, it was with an intention to outrage her modesty. He further submits that the evidence that the applicant insisted the prosecutrix to agree to sexual intercourse is liable to be disblieved being improbable, contradictory and suffering from material omissions in the case diary statement. He also submits that the prosecutrix has exaggerated the incident and in the absence of any corroboration from other established and dependable circumstances, conviction of the applicant under Section 354 of IPC cannot be sustained in law – Held, Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English language defines modesty as freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct. In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.), the meaning of the word modesty is given as womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions - In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, a question arose whether a female child of seven-and-a-half months could be said to be possessed of modesty which could be outraged. In answering the above question, the majority view was that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354, IPC. Needless to say, the common notions of mankind referred to have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. It was further observed in the said case that the essence of a womans modesty is her sex and from her very birth, she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of modesty and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh case (AIR 1967 SC 63), the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The above position was noted - When the above test is applied in the present case, keeping in view the total fact situation, the inevitable conclusion is that the acts of the accused-appellant and the concrete role he consistently played from the beginning proved combination of persons and minds as well and as such amounted to outraging of her modesty for it was an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency - Has remained emphatic and coherent on her evidence. Prompt report was lodged and injuries found on the person of the prove that the applicant used criminal force on the with no other intention except to outrage her modesty - Petition dismissed
1. Heard.
2. This revision is directed against the order dated 9-1-2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2014, by which, the appellate Court has held the appellant guilty of commission of offence under Sections 354, 341 and 323 of IPC.
3. According to the prosecution story, when the prosecutrix, P.W.1 was going on her bicycle to her house at village Parsada on 23-6-2014 at about 2 p.m. near the canal, the applicant came across, wearing underwear and waist and obstructed the prosecutrix, dragged her towards nearby canal and assaulted, used criminal force and also hurled abuses and insisted on sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix lodged FIR in Ex.P.1 in the Police Station. The applicant was arrested, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed for alleged commission of offences under Sections 354-B, 354, 341 and 323 of IPC and charges were framed against the applicant by the trial Court. Applicant was tried for commission of offences alleged. Vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-11-2014, the applicant was held guilty of the offences and sentenced 4 years R.I. under Section 354-B of IPC with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month and 1 month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sections 341 & 323 of IPC.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal and the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. While conviction of the appellant under Sections 341 & 323 of IPC was affirmed, the appellate Court found that the offence under Section 354-B of IPC was not made out but the offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out. The conviction of the appellant was accordingly altered to that extent under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, as minimum sentence prescribed under the law. It is this order, which is challenged in this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the allegation of commission of offence of outraging modesty was not proved from the testimony of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1. He submits that though, the prosecutrix has stated regarding hurling of abuses and slapping, that by itself would not satisfy the ingredients of commission of offence under Section 354, IPC, as there is no clear evidence to prove that whatever was done by the applicant, it was with an intention to outrage her modesty. He further submits that the evidence that the applicant insisted the prosecutrix to agree to sexual intercourse is liable to be disblieved being improbable, contradictory and suffering from material omissions in the case diary statement. He also submits that the prosecutrix has exaggerated the incident and in the absence of any corroboration from other established and dependable circumstances, conviction of the applicant under Section 354 of IPC cannot be sustained in law.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by submitting that the prosecutrix has very clearly stated regarding indecent activity of the applicant which was clearly intended to outrage her modesty. He submits that the aforesaid offence found to have been committed, the applicant has to be awarded minimum sentence of one year as provided under Section 354 of IPC.
7. Section 354 of IPC provides for punishment for assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. What would constitute an act of outraging modesty would depend upon facts and circumstances of every case. The word outraging modesty has not been given any specific definition under the Code. Anything which affects the modesty of a woman, which may take place in many ways, coupled with the circumstances of the case, overt act, words used, may constitute an act of outraging modesty. The culpable intention of the accused
SupremeToday
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
