Telangana High Court
K.Rattaiah Ratnaji, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 7 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.454 OF 2010
Between:
K.Rattaiah @ Ratnaji ... Appellant
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of A.P,
Hyderabad. ... Respondent.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.07.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No.454 of 2010
% Dated 07.07.2022
# K.Rattaiah @ Ratnaji ... Appellant
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of A.P,
Hyderabad. ..Respondent.
! Counsel for the Appellant: M.V.Hanumantha Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 194
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.454 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 354
of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default
of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months vide judgment in S.C.No.323 of 2009 dated
31.03.2010 passed by IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad (for short 'the Sessions Judge').
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was
working as a computer repairer rendering services in the High
Court. P.W.1 is a maid in the house of P.W.3, who was the then
Registrar in the High Court. On 05.01.2009, the appellant went
to the house of P.W.3 for repairing computer. On the said day
around 5.00 p.m, watchman of the apartment made phone call to
the flat and asked whether the appellant herein could be
permitted to enter the flat for the purpose of repairing the
computer. Thereafter the appellant entered the flat and informed
P.W.1 that P.W.3 had sent him and asked for the computer.
While the appellant was in the computer room, he called P.W.1
and asked her to bring water. When P.W.1 entered into the
computer room with glass of water, the appellant caught hold of
the hand of P.W.1 and her bangles were broken. Immediately,
she cried for help and the appellant fled from the flat. P.W.1
called P.W.3 and P.W.3 came home with police and thereafter,
Ex.P1 report was given.
3. Learned Sessions Judge having examined witnesses P.Ws.1
to 6 found that the appellant was guilty for the offence under
Section 354 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
incident happened in the year 2009 and only P.W.1 and the
appellant were present in the house when the alleged incident
took place. Though the prosecution claims that it was the
watchman of the apartment who sent the appellant inside, he
was not examined. For the reason of his non examination and not
producing the register maintained for visitors, the prosecution
has to fail and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to draw inference against the
appellant that he had committed an offence under Section 354 of
IPC and the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge cannot be interfered with.
6. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she states that the
appellant has caught hold of her hand and her bangles were
broken. It is not the case of the prosecution that either bangles
were seized from the place of occurrence or that the P.W.1 has
received any injuries due to broken bangles on her hands.
Further, when questioned during chief examination, P.W.1 stated
that when the accused caught hold of her hand, she got angry
and she does not know the object or intention with which the
accused caught hold of her hand. Section 354 of IPC reads as
follows:
"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
modesty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage
her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
7. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill1, in
paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, it is discussed about the meaning of
the word 'modesty' and what act of a person would amount to
(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 194
outraging such 'modesty' of woman. Their Lordships have held
that from the dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the
interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab v. Major Singh's case, it appears that the test for
ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of
the offender as could be perceived as one which is capable of
shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
8. Applying the above test as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it cannot be said that catching hold of the hand
of P.W.1 amounts to outraging her modesty in the present facts.
Even according to P.W.1 when questioned during the chief
examination, she stated that she was angry for the reason of
catching her hand and she did not know about any intention or
the object of the accused in catching hold of her hand.
9. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, since
P.W.1 herself did not perceive the act of catching hold of her
hand as invading her decency as a woman, it cannot be said that
the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are made out to sustain the
conviction.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC vide
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.323 of 2009
dated 31.03.2010. Since the appellant is already on bail, the bail
bonds shall stand cancelled.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending, shall stands closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 07.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.454 OF 2010
Date: 07.07.2022.
kvs
