Mere touch of body of a female cannot be equated to outraging her modesty. However, repeated attempt to touch breast of a woman with knowledge of outraging modesty amounts to offence under Section 354 IPC.

1. - This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of Munisf Magistrate, Alwar, dated November 20, 1974, in Criminal Case No. 253 of 1973, by which he acquitted the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Cede and convicted him for offence under Section 352 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 105 (rupees one hundred and five) only.

2. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are as under:- Hetram the accused respondent was prosecuted for offence under Section 354 1PC. On the allegations that on 18-11-1971 when the prosecutrix Smt. Shanta Bai alighted from the train at Kherliganj and started moving towards the gate on the platform some body touched her breast. Smt. Shantabai took it to be an accidently touch and continued moving forward. After a minute or so her breast was again touched and thereafter admitted to snatch the Gold-chain in her he was made thereupon she raised a cry and the witnesses saw the accused withdrawing his hand from the breast of Smt. Shantabai. A case under section 354 IPC was registered. A case was investigated and the accused was tried for offence under section 354 IPC. On appreciation of evidence of PW 1 Smt. Shantibai, PW 2 Ramswaroop, PW 3 Shankerchand PW 5 Fakir Chand. The learned Judge come to the conclusion that First Information Report was filed and the accused was caught redhanded and the incident has happened in the manner narrated by the prosecution witnesses. But curiously the learned Judge held that the act of the accused does not fall under section 354 IPC as he had no intention to out-rage the modesty of Smt. Shantidevi because of the fact that the accused tried to reach the neck of Mst. Shantidevi for snatching the gold chain and as there was no charge for attempt to theft the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondent.

3. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the State has argued that when the accused put his hands twice on the breast of Shantidevi then it is implicit that he had knowledge that by putting so, he will out-rage her modesty. Mr. Purohit emphasised that it has come in evidence of Mst. Shantadevi that the accused repeated the process of putting the hand on the breast and did not stop after doing it once.

4. Mr. Purohit pointed out that under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to outrage the motive under section 354 also contemplates that even there is no intention but if it is proved that there was knowledge then also the offence is made out.

5. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 reads as under:

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."

6. In replying to the submissions of Mr. Purohit, Mr. Tibriwal learned counsel for the accused submitted that the intention of the accused as per findings of the Magistrate was to snatch the ornaments from the neck of Mst. Shantabai and therefore, there was neither any intention nor any knowledge to out-rage the modesty of Mst. Shantabai. Mr. Tibriwal pointed out that mere touch of body of a female cannot be equated to outraging her modesty and if in process of making attempt to snatch ornaments from neck, the breast was pressed then it cannot be said that the accused has any intention or knowledge for outraging the modesty of Mst. Shantadevi.

7. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

8. In the instant case the statement of Mst. Shantabai is very important. She has stated that the accused twice threw his hands on her breast. When once the accused did it she was alarmed and by the time she could catch hold of the accused the accused disappeared. It was repe