The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, and instant reaction is relevant in determining intent.

1. The question in this appeal against acquittal by the State is as to whether the test of a woman's individual reaction to the act of the accused with regard to outraging of modesty is the test, or, that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. In the process, the question is as to whether the Court has to consider a woman's modesty as lying in her sex and exposing through her instantaneous reactions irrespective of the intention of the accused as regards the matter. Reaction of a woman instantaneously is very relevant together with the position that it is her sex that clothes with a born sense of modesty. In fact, these principles are laid down by the Supreme Court and even thereafter. They are to the effect that the body of a female of a tender age may be immature at a given point of time, but development of a sense of shame, an awareness of her sexual characteristics, although get postponed to a particular age, the Court has regard that from her very birth, she possesses the modesty, which is the attribute of her sex. These principles are well - settled and even then, in a short but cryptic order of acquittal, even though the prosecutrix is young woman of 20 years of age, in spite of there being evidence of instantaneous resistance and shouts, the order is a passed on a solitary reasoning that the accused - respondent did not possess the necessary intention of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix. This is obviously a legally erroneous conviction.

2. Although it is elementary, the provisions of S.354, Indian Penal Code , need a passing reference for the completeness of this judgment. The provision creates a criminal liability of the person assaulting or using the criminal force to any woman, not only intending, but also knowing it to be likely that the result would be an outrage of the modesty of a woman. It is equally elementary that intention or knowledge is provided by the factual matrix.

3. The prosecutrix Kamlabai is a resident of village Dhondwade. She was in the early hours at 5.30 a.m. of December 4, 1985, setting out for getting water from the village well. The well is situated near the village temple of Maruti. The accused - respondent caught her hand and pulled her towards him to be taken to a wada nearby. She raised a hue and cry of resistance. Some persons gathered; and first one was her neighbour Shalik (PW 2). The second one to follow was her another neighbour Dhanabai (PW 3). The evidence shows that Shalik saw the accused - respondent holding the hand of the prosecutrix Kamlabai (PW 1) and Dhanabai (PW 3) is contradicted in regard to this aspect of holding the hand. In fact, Dhanabai has turned hostile in the cross - examination. In the process, Kamlabai's bangles were broken and the breakage caused injuries. Kamlabai tells the Court that injuries were bleeding, in regard to which there is no support of the medical officer, Dr. Narwade (PW9) of the Primary Health Centre at Pahur. His evidence is only to the effect that he found bruises. However, the spot panchnama (Exh. 12) proved through the panch Badgujar (PW 4) clearly mentions finding of the broken bangle pieces of the same orange colour, which was of the intact bangles on the person of prosecutrix Kamlabai.

4. The defence is one of total denial.

5. The evidence of the prosecutrix is as follows : -
"…….. Accused all of a sudden came there. Accused shut my mouth by one of his hands and held me by holding my hand. Accused was trying to pull me by force towards Tapari. There is a kondwada towards that side. I gave a jerk to his hand and raised shout. Due to the jerk give