Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37053
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
GIGI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KREALA Advocate - SRI P P MADHUSUDHANAN SRI P P MADHUSUDHANAN – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 778/2002
Intention to outrage modesty can be inferred from the perpetrator's actions and the context of the assault.
Headnote:
Assault - IPC - [Sections 341, 323, 354] - The court examined the charges under the IPC sections regarding assault and outraging modesty, affirming conviction under Sections 323 and 354 IPC based on corroborating evidence while acquitting the petitioner of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was accused of assaulting the defacto complainant, involving physical violence and an attempt to outraging her modesty while restraining her after a dispute over goats.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the defacto complainant and witness was consistent and credible, establishing that the petitioner had not only assaulted her but had the intention to outrage her modesty.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established all elements of the offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC, including proving the intention to outrage modesty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention to outrage modesty can be inferred from the actions of the assailant, particularly in the context of physical assault and the tearing of clothing.
Final Decision: Conviction under Sections 323 and 354 IPC upheld, but sentence reduced to two weeks imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000.
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
The Sub Inspector of Police, Ramankary Police Station, in Crime No.76 of 1996, prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ramankary, accusing offences under Sections 341 , 323, and 354 IPC with an allegation that at 11 a.m., on 15.9.1996, the revision petitioner wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant at Cherikalakam padasekharam. She was caught at her hands, slapped at face, fisted on back and kicked on the stomach. When the defacto complainant attempted to run away she was caught at her blouse and the blouse was torn.
2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that the vegetation of the revision petitioner was destroyed by the goats of the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW1. When he drove away the goats, PW1 and another assaulted him and that the case was falsely foisted against him. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC and no offence under Section 341 was established. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 354 and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs.500/- was ordered to be paid to PW1 as compensation. For offence under , the revision petitioner was acquitted.
3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.190 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -1), Alappuzha, to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 26.3.2002, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition is preferred.
4. I have heard Smt. Indu, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms.Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned and the evidence on record.
5. PWs 1 and 2 would harmoniously depose that the revision petitioner assaulted PW1 by slapping at her cheeks, fisting at back and kicking at her abdomen. While PW1 attempted to run away, she was caught at her blouse and torn the blouse. Their evidence would corroborate with the averments in Ext.P1 First Information Statement. PW3, the Medical Officer, would depose that PW1 had tenderness on her parietal region, back of right side of chest, right chest and left side of the lower part of the abdomen. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the assault is corroborated by the medical evidence. Carefully going through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, I find that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding assault. There is sufficient evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner had voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW1. Their evidence is also consistent that while the defacto complainant attempted to run away, she was caught at her blouse ad that blouse was torn. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence on that aspect.
6. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the revision petitioner had got any intention to outrage the modesty of PW1. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, no intention on the side of the revision petitioner to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant is established. At the most there only assault is established. Therefore, no offence under Section 354 IPC is established. In support of the argument advanced, the learned counsel would rely upon tw
