The Bombay High Court set aside the Applicant's conviction for the offence punishable by u/s.451 and u/s.354 of IPC. A single-judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Smt. Bharati Dangre held that rolling the hand over the women’s back and uttering the words like “you have grown up so much” does not amount to having an intention of outraging the modesty of women.
Brief Facts:
The present Revision Application was preferred by the Applicant, being aggrieved by the concurrent finding rendered by the JMFC and Addl. Sessions Judge, Vardha. By the impugned judgments, the Applicant stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s.451 and u/s.354 of IPC.
The alleged incident was informed by the complainant, mother of the victim girl, aged 12-13 years, that while her daughter was all alone at home, the accused entered the house on the pretext of handing over documents of R.D and though her daughter objected to his entry by protesting that her mother was not at home, he gained access into the house and asked for drinking water. When the victim offered him water, he sat next to her, rolled his hand over her back and head and uttered, "you have grown up so much”. She reached the home to make him understand the gravity of the situation, but when he threatened that they are at liberty to take whatever steps they wanted to, she lodged a report in the police station in Wardha city. The issue raised before this Court was- “Whether the offence u/s.451 and 354 has been sufficiently established”?
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned Counsel for the Applicant brought the attention of the Court to the several inconsistencies and omissions in the depositions of eight prosecution witnesses.
Observations of the Court:
This Court perused all the depositions of prosecution witnesses and found that there are various omissions in the testimony of PW 1, which is proved through the statement of PW Nos.7 and 8. The Court noticed that in order to prove that an act amounts to an offence punishable u/s.354, the two necessary ingredients are to be necessarily established; it has to be either an assault or criminal force applied to a woman.
Further, the Court observed that if one looks at the case of the prosecution, which is full of inconsistencies right from the version of the complainant, the incident which is alleged to have been reported in about the accused moving his hand over the victim and saying she has grown up. The victim girl appears to be frightened because of the said act when the accused told her that she has grown up.
However, to outrage a woman's modesty, what is most important is having the intention to outrage modesty. But it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused did something more than what has been alleged. Neither the victim girl, aged 12 – 13 years, spoke of any bad intention on his part, but what she deposed is she felt bad or indicated some unpleasant act, which made her uncomfortable.
Therefore, in the absence of a specific intention established by the prosecution, being to outrage the modesty, it is not understood to the Court how Section 354 has been invoked and even proved to be proved. As far as Section 451 is concerned, though he has entered the house, he gained entry only when the victim opened the door. In view of this fact, the Court held that the entry into the house cannot be construed as a house-trespass covered within the purview of Section 451.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the revision application, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the JMFC, Vardha, and the judgment by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Wardha.
Case Title: - Mayur s/o Babarao Yelore vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Smt. Bharati Dangre
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Amol Hunge
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.V.A. Thakre
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :