SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Ker) 724

P.S.GOPINATHAN
Gigi – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:S. Shanavas Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M.S. Madhu Ben, Public Prosecutor.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court examines whether there was intention to outrage the modesty of PW1 for applicability of Section 354 IPC. (!) - The court finds there is cogent evidence of assault plus tearing of the blouse, and reasons about intention to outrage modesty, upholding conviction under Section 354 IPC and acquitting under Section 341 IPC. (!) (!) - The revision petition is allowed in part: conviction sustained, sentence for Section 354 IPC reduced to simple imprisonment for two weeks, fine of Rs. 5,000 with default three months, and existing fines under Section 323 IPC and compensation provisions upheld. (!) (!) - The accused is directed to surrender for execution of sentence; default provisions for non-payment of fine apply. (!)

What is the question of intent required to attract Section 354 IPC in the context of assault to outrage modesty?

What is the court’s conclusion regarding the sufficiency of evidence to convict under Section 354 IPC and acquit under Section 341 IPC?

What sentence modification does the Kerala High Court grant on revision in relation to Section 354 IPC and what are the conditions of payment of fines?


JUDGMENT :-

P.S. Gopinathan, J.

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ramankary Police Station, in Crime No.76 of 1996, prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ramankary, accusing offences under Sections 341, 323, and 354 IPC with an allegation that at 11 a.m., on 15.9.1996, the revision petitioner wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant at Cherikalakam padasekharam. She was caught at her hands, slapped at face, fisted on back and kicked on the stomach. When the defacto complainant attempted to run away she was caught at her blouse and the blouse was torn.

2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that the vegetation of the revision petitioner was destroyed by the goats of the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW1. When he drove away the goats, PW1 and another assaulted him and that the case was falsely foisted against him. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate,












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top