Conviction under Section 354 IPC upheld; imprisonment modified due to the petitioner’s age and health conditions.

O R D E R

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, and the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Alappuzha, in C.C.No.924/2001 and Crl.A.No.89/2006 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), are under challenge in this revision petition filed by the accused in the said case.

2. The learned Magistrate initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant/PW1. Before that, the Police had conducted an investigation in Crime No.213/1998, registered on the basis of the complaint of the de facto complainant, but a refer report was filed before the learned Magistrate. It is thereafter that PW1 filed the complaint before the Trial Court and adduced evidence in support of the same.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 04.12.1997, at about 08:00 a.m., while the petitioner was working as an Anesthetist in Government Hospital, Cherthala, he outraged the modesty of PW1 at the operation theatre where she was taken for delivery. According to the complainant, the petitioner deliberately pressed her breasts, and scolded her when she resisted the above act.

4. Before the Trial Court, in addition to PW1, two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 from the part of the complainant. Exts P1 to P8 were marked as documents from the part of the complainant. The petitioner did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully established the allegation about the act of the petitioner outraging her modesty inside the operation theatre of Cherthala Government Hospital. The petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for one week. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the evidence tendered by the complainant as PW1 about the act of the petitioner outraging her modesty.

7. Among the other witnesses examined as PW2 and PW3, the Gynecologist of that hospital, who was examined as PW2, had stated that she had occasion to conduct an earlier enquiry against the petitioner in connection with a similar allegation of the complainant at the time of her first delivery. It is further stated by PW2 that on the basis of the report submitted by her, the petitioner was transferred to the Casualty Department and posted there by the DMO. Anyhow, PW2 has not stated anything in support of the allegation of the complainant about the act of the accused in the present case. PW3, the Secretary of the Cherthala Municipality, has stated before the Trial Court that the complaint which he received from the complainant in connection with the alleged act of the petitioner, has been forwarded to the Director of Health Services and the Superintendent of Police.

8. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court proceeded with the conviction and sentence by relying on the sole testimony of PW1 about the act of the petitioner outraging her modesty. The concurrent findings of the courts below in