Back
2005 (4) Crimes 149
Kerala High Court
K. Padmanabhani Nair, J.
Sasidharan —Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala —Respondent
Crl. Revision No. 1011 of 1995
Decided on 26-5-2005
Result : Revision allowed accordingly.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
To convict a person under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution must prove that the accused assaulted or used criminal force on a woman with the intention or knowledge that such act would outrage her modesty. The reaction of the victim alone is not sufficient to determine the nature of the offence (!) (!) .
The essence of the offence under Section 354 IPC is the act of assault or use of criminal force with the intent to outrage modesty, not merely the act of outraging modesty itself. There must be a culpable intention or knowledge that the act would outrage modesty (!) (!) .
In this case, the evidence showed that the accused caught the complainant by her hair and fisted her on her back, chest, and head. However, there was no evidence indicating that the accused used indecent words or had the intent to satisfy lust. The act was found to be more appropriately classified under Section 352 IPC (punishment for assault) rather than Section 354 IPC (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that modesty relates to propriety of behavior in relation to women and that the reaction of the victim is not the sole criterion for determining whether the offence was committed. The intention behind the act is crucial (!) (!) .
The evidence established that the accused acted out of enmity due to a prior complaint regarding his behavior towards the complainant’s physically handicapped son. The act of catching her by hair and fist-fisting was not shown to be motivated by sexual intent or to outrage modesty, leading to a conviction for a lesser offence (!) (!) .
The accused was a first offender, aged over 52 at the time of the incident, and the court found him suitable for release on probation. The court decided to convert the conviction from one under Section 354 IPC to Section 352 IPC and to release him on probation with a condition to keep the peace and be of good behavior, along with a compensation order (!) (!) .
The court ordered the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000 to the complainant within two months. If the petitioner fails to pay, the amount will be recovered as if it were a fine (!) .
The revision petition was allowed in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC, and the petitioner was convicted under Section 352 IPC with the specified conditions (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
ORDER
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.— The
accused in C.C.No.254 of 1990 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal is the revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S.354 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 77 of 1993 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge also concurred with the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging those concurrent findings.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition are as follows:— The accused and the
de facto complainant are relatives. The de facto complainant is a housewife, aged about 42 years on the date of the incident. She is having two children. One of the sons is physically handicapped. The accused used to tease and ridicule the physically handicapped son of the de facto complainant. The son complained to the de facto complainant about the behaviour of the accused. She came to the house of the accused and told the mother of the accused to forbid the accused from teasing the physically handicapped son. When the accused came to know about this, he became infuriated. In the evening on 8.2.1990, the de facto complainant went to the Ration Shop to purchase Ration articles. She purchased articles and was going back to her house. At about 6.30 p.m., she reached near the house of the accused. The accused came from behind and caught hold of her by hair and fisted her on her back, chest and head. He also uttered words "how she dared to make a complaint about his behaviour towards her physically handicapped son to his mother". He also exhorted that "the beating was the result of her complaint". She cried aloud. People in the nearby places rushed to the place of occurrence. Then the revision petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence. She went to her house and thereafter went to the police station at 9.45 P.M. on that day and gave Ext.Pl F.I. Statement. The Sub Inspector of Police registered Ext.P4 FIR under S.354 of Indian Penal Code and forwarded the same to the Court. He conducted further investigation and filed the final report alleging that the revision petitioner committed the offence punishable under S.354 of Indian Penal Code.
3. When the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate, the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him. He denied the allegations. On the side of prosecution, PWs. l to 6 were examined. Exts.Pl to P4 proved and marked. After the prosecution evidence was over, the revision petitioner was questioned under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the incriminating circumstances against him brought out during evidence. According to him, his sister and himself were attacked by the son of the de facto complainant and others. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital and treated there. On the side of accused, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. Exts. Dl to D5 proved and marked. The learned Magistrate after trial found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S.354 IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Those conviction and sentence were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Those judgments are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition.
4. In view of the fact that the petitioner was the first offender and he is now aged more than 55 years, this Court called for a report from the District Probation Officer to find out whether the petitioner can be released under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. A report was received and thereafter the matter was heard.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that even if the entire case put forward by the prosecution is accepted as such, it will not disclose any offence under S.354 of Indian Penal Code. It will
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
