The central legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of the essential elements required to prove the charge under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned APP appears for the State.

2. As would appear from the judgment of the trial Court no one appeared for the complainant when the matter was posted for arguments. In the present proceeding also inspite of service of notice the complainant has not put her appearance. Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 4th February 2015 of this Court a copy of the order was sent to the complainant through registered post and Mukhiya of village Sundar Pahari has personally served a copy of the order upon the complainant.

3. The petitioner was convicted under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to SI for 9 months by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by judgment dated 6th September 2011 passed in C.P. Case No.225 of 2003 corresponding to T.R. No.870 of 2011.

4. Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 12th November 2014.

5. In the present criminal revision petition, Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that mere holding of hand of a lady without any intention to outrage or knowledge that it would be likely that he will thereby outrage modesty of the lady the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

6. During the trial in T.R No.870 of 2011, the complainant who is the victim lady examined five witnesses to support the charge under sections 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant who examined herself as PW4 stated in her evidence in the Court that when she objected to the accused persons collecting fish from the pond the petitioner caught her hand and snatched the gold chain. The other witnesses have deposed in the Court that on hearing hulla by the complainant they went near the pond and saw the petitioner holding hand of the complainant. The learned trial Judge acquitted Munni Devi of the charge framed under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the petitioner was held guilty for committing the offence under section 354 of the Indian penal Code.

7. The learned trial Judge has held as under :

“As regards offence u/s. 354 of the Indian penal Code there is consistent evidence. PW-1 Rajendra Prasad Saw in Para1, PW-2 Vishwanath Saw in Para-1, PW-3 in Para-1 and PW-4 Lata Devi in Para-2 have stated that the accused Sanjay Kumar Sinha caught hold of the hand of complainant with an intention to outrage her modesty. All of them are the eyewitnesses. PW-5 Rooplal Soren has stated nothing about outraging the modesty. But, otherwise he has corroborated the case of the complainant. Thus, I find that though there are minor contradictions in the deposition all these witnesses with respect to the offence of outraging of modesty which is not very much very significant. I further find that DW-1 and DW-2 have stated nothing on this point. The deposition of DW-2 Sanjay Kumar Sinha remained unchallenged. Except for the fact that the accused persons have alleged that there is enmity no document in this respect has been brought on record, though they have stated orally about this. Thus, from the foregoing analysis I find that there is sufficient evidence in respect of offence u/s.354 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The appellate Court took note of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and came to a finding that all the witnesses except PW5 have seen the petitioner holding hand of complainant to outrage her modesty.

9. The discussion in the appellate Court's judgment proceeds in the following manner :

“22. The ld. Lawyer for the appellant has argued that under the facts of this case section 354 IPC is not attracted. If a man is accused of placing his hand over the private part of a lady the person would be guilty of the commission of offence u/s 354 IPC but the same is not appears to me convicting as all the witnesses have categorically stated that appellant caught hold hand of Lata Rani complai