The Jharkhand High Court, in acquitting an accused under Section 354 IPC, has noted that the mere tearing of clothing during a spontaneous altercation does not necessarily constitute an offence of outraging a woman's modesty.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “For offence under Section 354 IPC, intention to outrage modesty of a woman, is the fundamental ingredient. Touch caused otherwise during the course of a fight, between two warring section cannot be called an act to outrage the modesty. If in a free fight wearing apparels are torn, it will not invariably make out an offence under this Section.”

The above ruling came in a Criminal Appeal directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 448, 323, 354 IPC and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellants' Counsel informed that the incident in question stemmed from a spontaneous altercation between neighboring parties over a minor drainage dispute. The counsel asserted that charging the appellants under the S.C./S.T. Act was unfounded, as the altercation did not occur in public view, and there were significant contradictions in the witnesses' statements regarding the use of caste names to address the complainant.

Moreover, the counsel contended that the offense under Section 354 IPC could not be established, as there was no evidence on record suggesting an intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant.

The counsel asserted that the crux of the matter pertained to house trespass and assault by a group of seven individuals, including four females, and thus, the counsel argued, the question of outraging modesty did not arise in this case.

The counsel further asserted that the incident took place on the spur of the moment and there was nothing to suggest that anybody sustained any injury.

On a combined reading of testimony of the witnesses, the Court observed that it was apparent that out of 7 accused persons, four were females and the predominant motive was free fight and not to outrage modesty, and thus, the Court held that the evidence on record did not make out an offence under Section 354 IPC.

Further, regarding words of verbal abuse, the Court opined that there was much conflicting version and it was not stated as to who had used those words.

“Some witnesses have stated that they had identified the complainant-party as 'Chamar' whereas the other witnesses have named them as 'Paswan',” the Court observed.

On this sketchy evidence, the Court was of the view that the offence under SC/ ST Act would not prove beyond the shadow of probable doubt.

The Court further observed, “As far as offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, the case of the complainant is consistent regarding the incidence and all the witnesses have stated that the appellants/accused conjointly assaulted the complainant and others by brick-batting. The delay in lodging has been explained in the complaint petition itself that they had approached the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner which resulted in delay of six days.”

The Court asserted that under the circumstances, the prosecution had proved the charge under Sections 448 / 323/ 34 IPC against the appellants and the conviction under these sections was affirmed.

Further, charges under Section 354 IPC and 3 (x) of the SC and S.T. Act was not proved for which they were acquitted of the charges by the Court.

“On the point of sentence, considering the nature of offence, appellants are directed to be released on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,” the Court held, while partly allowing the Criminal Appeal.

Appearance:

For the Applicant: Mrs. J. Mazumdar

For the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 13

.Case No.: Cr. Appeal [SJ] No.289 of 2012

Case Title: Mithilesh Kumar Saw @ Mithlesh Saw & ors. vs The State of Jharkhand

Click here to Read/ Download Judgment