Telangana High Court
Ashok , vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 8 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1262 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under
Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months vide judgment dated 19.09.2008 in S.C.No.340 of
2006 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-
cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), L.B.Nagar,
Ranga Reddy District(for short 'learned Sessions Judge').
Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/victim and the
appellant/accused are of same locality. The
appellant/accused was doing tailoring work and used to
harass P.W.1 asking her to come once (oka sari raa- in telugu
language meaning - come once). On the date of incident
around 3.00 a.m, when P.W.1 went to bathroom, the appellant
entered into room, caught hold of her hand when she came
out and tried to drag her outside. P.W.1 shouted for help and
her sister PW2 was in the house. Thereafter they complained
to the parents of the appellant about his conduct, however, the
parents of the appellant did pay any attention to the
complaint, as such, P.W.1 filed complaint under Ex.P1.
3. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined the
victim/P.W.1, P.W.2 who was in the house and other
witnesses found that the appellant had committed an offence
under Section 354 of IPC and convicted accordingly.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as
admitted by P.W.1, a case against her husband was pending
for attempting to murder the father of the appellant herein.
However, witness stated that the said allegation against
husband was subsequent to the present complaint and
admitted that the husband of P.W.1 attempted to stab the
father of the appellant. In the said background of old enmity,
present police complaint was filed to exert pressure on the
father of the appellant to turn hostile in the case against
P.W.1's husband.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that
when there are admittedly disputes, there is every likelihood of
the alleged incident happening and when the appellant had
asked her to come once and also caught hold of her hand, it
amounts to an offence under Section 354 IPC and the
appellant was rightly convicted by the Sessions Court.
6. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is evident that the
appellant had caught hold of P.W.1's hand and asked her to
come once. In the back ground of disputes amongst the
family, it has to be ascertained whether there was any
intention on the part of the appellant herein to outrage the
modesty of women as required to be found guilty for the
offence under Section 354 IPC. Though, merely holding of
hand of a women may not have the impact of shocking her
decency, Pw1 ought to have stated her reaction to the incident.
It is stated that the appellant was trying to drag her out.
However, it is not the case that the appellant had touched any
other parts of the body or made any indecent gestures and
P.W.1 also did not specify that with an intention to outrage
her modesty, the appellant had done such act of holding 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 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.
(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 194
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 of the case where there were pending disputes
and appellant was trying to drag her out.
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. It is also not clearly stated as to why
PW1 was dragged out and the appellant asked her to come out
once.
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.340 of 2006
dated 19.09.2008. 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: 08.07.2022
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.1262 OF 2008
Date:08.07.2022
kvs
