Mohd. Abdul Azeem vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3518 Tel

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.73 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under

Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine

of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days vide judgment

in S.C.No.75 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009 passed by Special

Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VII Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short 'the

Sessions Judge'). However, the appellant was found not

guilty for the offences under Sections 506 and 509 of IPC

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the

husband of P.W.2 filed a complaint stating that in the

morning of 20.12.2006 at about 7.30 a.m, while his wife

P.W.2 was sweeping the verandah, the appellant who was

residing in the first floor as tenant caught hold of her hand

and tried to kiss her with an intention to outrage her

modesty. She cried for help and P.W.1 and others went to

the spot and on seeing them, the appellant fled. For such

acts of appellant, complaint was made and the Police

Madannapet registered Crime No.162 of 2006 for the

offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of

IPC.

3. During the course of examination, the learned

Sessions Judge has examined the victim as P.W.2, who

stated that the appellant was a tenant in the first floor and

on 20.12.2006 , he came down to the verandah where she

was present and caught hold of her hand and tried to kiss.

She shouted for help and P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 arrived. PW 1,

3, 4, 5 stated that they heard PW2 shouting and when they

went there, they found the appellant fleeing from the place.

4. On the basis of the said allegation of catching hold of

her hand and trying to kiss P.W.2, the learned Sessions

Judge found the appellant guilty as stated supra.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the trial Court failed to take into consideration the defence

Exs.D1 to D7, which are the complaints lodged before the

Collector and Commissioner of Police against their house

owners P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ex.D1 is the complaint addressed

to the Collector on 16.12.2006 by the wife of appellant that

their house owners are harassing her without providing

water. Admittedly, there are owner and tenant disputes

between P.Ws.1, 2 and the appellant and his wife. It is the

specific case of the appellant that he was targeted for the

reason of compliant that was lodged four days prior to the

present compliant against them. The wife of appellant has

already lodged complaint Ex.D1 on 16.12.2006 and the

present complaint making allegations of catching hold of the

hand of P.W.2 was made after four days i.e., 20.12.2006.

He further submits that all these aspects were not taken

into consideration. However, the appellant is now aged 72

years and in the event of the Court finding him guilty as

sentenced, may take a lenient view.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in

fact, the act of the appellant in catching hold of the hand of

the appellant and trying to kiss her would amount to an

offence under Section 354 of IPC and the well reasoned

judgment of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be

interfered with.

7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is the tenant of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and there were disputes in between them

regarding the appellant and his family members staying in

the said house as tenants. The compliant made against

P.Ws.1 and 2 by the appellant's wife was marked as Ex.D1,

it is apparent that there were disputes in between P.W.2

and the appellant's family. However, during the course of

cross-examination, P.Ws.1 and 2 totally denied that there

were any disputes in between their families and they were

in fact very cordial and families were visiting one another.

8. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the back ground of the

complaint made against them appears to be tainted cannot

be believed. Admittedly, due to differences between the

families, appellant's wife went to the extent of filing

complaint against P.Ws.1 and 2 four days prior to the

present complaint against the appellant. It would give rise to

any amount of doubt whether the said incident of catching

hold of hand of P.W.2 has taken place as stated by her.

9. P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 stated that they had gone to the

verandah where P.W.2 was present on hearing her cries. All

the witnesses are the family members and friends of P.W.1,

for which reason, the tainted version to help PW1 and 2 and

their interestedness cannot be overlooked. The act

attributed is catching hold of the hand and though P.W.2

alleges that the appellant tried to kiss her, nothing is

specifically stated by P.W.2 as to what the actions are or

how the appellant went about trying to kiss her. 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 impris- onment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

10. 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 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 appeared that the test for ascertaining whether

(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 194

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.

11. 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.2 amounts to outraging her modesty. Both for

the reasons of their enmity amongst families and specifically

as there was no mention about any acts intending to

outrage her modesty and also the complaint itself being

suspicious in the background of differences, the benefit of

doubt has to be extended to the appellant.

12. 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.75 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009. 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.73 OF 2009

Date: 07.07.2022.

kvs