The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Mumbai has held that Section 354 is not a sexual offence, it falls under the Chapter ‘Criminal Force and Assault’. The act of outraging modesty is not an offence under this Section, instead, the offence is constituted when an assault or use of criminal force is done to a woman with the intention or knowledge that the woman’s modesty will be outraged. It can be committed by a man or a woman. “He” used in section 354 has to be read in light of Section 8 of IPC meaning that it is sued for both men as well as women. It was expounded that Section 354 operates equality for all persons and it is not that women are exempted from punishment under this section.
Brief Facts:
The case of the Prosecution is that the Accused is the neighbour of the Informant. The Accused used to hurl abuses at the Informant as the Informant used to tell everything to the mother of the Accused. The Accused used to use filthy language and abuse the Informant on regular basis. One day Accused went to the home of the Informant and threw chappals towards the Informant and even asked her husband to rape the Informant. The husband and mother of the Accused tried to stop the Accused, but she did not listen and tore Informant’s gown.
Thereafter, FIR was lodged against the Accused. The Accused has been alleged to commit the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
Brief Background:
It was noted that the relationship of the Informant and the mother of the Accused was cordial but the relationship of the Accused with her mother was not cordial and therefore, the Accused started hating the Informant. The incident when the Accused started throwing chappal at Informant and beating her with it was witnessed by 2 witnesses. When the Accused tore the nightgown of the Informant there were men present who witnessed the same which caused embarrassment to the Informant.
Contentions of the Accused:
The primary contentions of the Accused were that no such incident has taken place and a false FIR has been lodged. It was argued that the eyewitnesses have a close relationship with the Informant and therefore, they are deposing falsely against the Accused.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed by the Court that there is nothing to prove that the eyewitnesses have any personal grudge against the Accused and hence, their testimonies cannot be disregarded.
Further, it was remarked that to constitute an offence under Section 324 of IPC, the first ingredient is hurt should be caused by a dangerous weapon or means. In the present case, chappal was used and the same cannot be categorized as a dangerous weapon. Therefore, Section 324 was not attracted but since the Accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant by assaulting her, Section 323 of IPC is attracted.
Regarding Section 354 IPC, the Accused contended that since both the Accused and Informant are women and there was no intention to outrage the modesty of the Informant, Section 354 will not be applicable.
Concerning Section 354, the Court opines that Section 354 is not a sexual offence, it falls under the Chapter ‘Criminal Force and Assault’. The act of outraging modesty is not an offence under this Section, instead, the offence is constituted when an assault or use of criminal force is done to a woman with the intention or knowledge that the woman’s modesty will be outraged. It can be committed by a man or a woman. “He” used in section 354 has to be read in light of Section 8 of IPC meaning that it is sued for both men as well as women. It was expounded that Section 354 operates equality for all persons and it is not that women are exempted from punishment under this section.
Further, it was held that the right of privacy of the Informant was infringed upon by the Accused when she tore the nightgown of the Informant. For Section 354, either assault or criminal force should be present. In the present case, the evidence on record proved that the Accused has outraged the modesty of the Informant by tearing her clothes in front of other people.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Accused was held guilty and punished under Sections 323 and 354 of IPC.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Rovena @ Aadnya Amit Bhosle
Coram: Metropolitan Magistrate M.V. Chavhan
Case No.: 7000138/PW/2021
Advocate for the State: Shri P.P. Mule, APP
Advocate for Accused: Shri Patnekar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
