Modesty Of Woman Is Outraged When Action Of Offender Could Be Perceived As Being Capable Of Shocking Her Sense Of Decency: Kerala High Court

In this case, the President of the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) of an upper primary school was accused of using obscene language and outraging the modesty of the school headmistress. It was alleged that during the PTA meeting, he grabbed both of her hands and pulled her towards his body.

Justice Muralee Krishna S. while quashing conviction under Section 354 of the IPC found that the revision petitioner might have acted in a heat of passion during the PTA meeting when he was being decided to be expelled out of the PTA. The Court referred to the decision in to Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2021) and held thus:

“The ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.”

The revision petitioner approached the High Court challenging his conviction under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage women's modesty) of the IPC.

The allegation was that the revision petitioner, while trying to snatch a written note from the hands of the school headmistress during the PTA meeting outraged her modesty and caused her injury. It was also alleged that the headmistress was slapped and suffered an injury below her nose.

The Trial Court had sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment with a fine for slapping and causing hurt. It also ordered three months of simple imprisonment with a fine for outraging the modesty of the complainant. His appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court.

The petitioner submitted that he had filed complaints against school management and that they were taking revenge against him.

The Court found there was evidence to prove that the headmistress had any enmity towards petitioner. Considering the injury inflicted upon the headmistress, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 323 of the IPC.

However, to attract an offence under Section 354 of the IPC, the Court stated, there must be assault and use of criminal force on a woman with an intention to outrage her modesty.

Relying upon Apex Court decision in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S Gill (1996), the Court noted that the term modesty was not defined under the IPC.

Further, the Court referred to Apex Court decision in State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1967) to state that culpable intention was necessary to attract an offence under Section 354. The High Court observed that the Apex Court in Major Singh (supra) had held as follows, "The test of the outrage of modesty must, therefore, be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. In considering the question, he must imagine the woman to be a reasonable woman and keep in view all circumstances concerning her, such as, her station and way of life and the known notions of modesty of such a woman.”

The Court noted that other witnesses did not depose that the petitioner caught hold of the complainant's hands and pulled her towards his body. It stated that the ingredients for attracting an offence under Section 354 were not made out.

As such, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC. Taking a lenient view towards the petitioner, the Court modified the one-month simple imprisonment to imprisonment until the rising of the Court and directed him to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the complainant.

Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Advocates B.S.Swathi Kumar, Ashish Mohan, A.K.Rajesh, Remya Murali

Counsel for Respondents: Central Government Counsel Suvin R Menon, Public Prosecutor M C Ashi

Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 4 OF 2014

Case Title: Nizar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 769

Click here to Read/Download order