IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent to outrage modesty, while the conviction under Section 323 IPC was modified to a lenient sentence.

ORDER :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, in short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 354 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

2. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as per the judgment dated 8.11 2013 in Crl A No.326 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara.

3. Before the Trial Court, from the side of prosecution PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts P1 to P5 documents were marked. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the petitioner was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in the prosecution evidence. DW1 was examined and Exts D1 to D12 documents were marked from the side of the petitioner.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner was the President of Parent Teachers Association of a U.P School. PW1 was the Headmistress and Parent Teachers Association Convener of the school. They were not in good terms due to some issues in the Parent Teachers Association. On 22.11.2007 at 3.30 p.m while the meeting of the Parent Teachers Association was going on, the petitioner uttered obscene words against PW1 and from her hands snatched a written motion brought by her to oust the petitioner from the association. He outraged her modesty by caught holding her both hands and pulling her towards his body. He slapped on her face and caused injury below her nose.

5. After considering the evidence on record in detail and hearing the learned Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the Trial Court held that the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by slapping on her face and also outraged her modesty by caught holding her hand and pulling her towards his body.

6. The Appellate Court also upheld the said finding of the Trial Court and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the evidence of PW1 regarding the injury caused to her is not tallying with that noted in Ext P2 wound certificate. From Exts D1 to D12 documents produced in defence evidence, it is evident that the petitioner had filed complaints against the Management of the School and hence the Management has an axe to grind against him. PW1 acted as a tool in the hands of the Management.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2 and 3-the eye witnesses. The contradiction pointed out in the evidence of PW1 with that of Ext P2 wound certificate is not material.

10. PW1 is the injured, PW2 is a member of the Parent Teachers Association who was later selected as President of the Association and PW3 is a teacher of the school. From the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, it is evident that the incident was occurred on 22.11.2007 at 3.30 p.m, while a Parent Teachers Association meeting was going on in the school. It is also evident from the depositions that PW1 was about to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner with a view to oust him from the Parent Teachers Association and it was at that time the petitioner forcefully snatched those papers from the hands of PW1 and slapped on her face. The depositions of PWs 1 to 3 regarding the injury caused to PW1 is fortified by Ext P2 wound certificate issued by PW4, the doctor who treated her, which would show that there was a corresponding injury on the lip of PW1. It is true that some complaints were previously filed by the petitioner against the M