Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N.J.Ramesh vs State Of Ap on 18 July, 2019
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.525 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed questing the order, dated 01.04.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2019 in C.C.No.497 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram.
The charge sheet in C.C.No.497 of 2018 was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 509 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. in Crime No.116 of 2018. The alleged offence took place on 20.05.2018. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet stating that the accused has committed an offence under Section 509 and 506 IPC. Thereafter, a petition came to be filed under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge the petitioner-Accused No.1 on the ground that no offence is made out in the said case against him. The same was dismissed. Questioning the same the present Revision Petition is filed.
Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner argues essentially that offence under Section 509 I.P.C. is not made out at all. Without admitting anything he submits that at best the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is made out. He also argues that this is essentially a civil case, to which a cloak of criminality has been added. Learned 2 counsel also filed statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and he argues that the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. is not made out. He submits that the petitioner is the second wife of one Lakshmana Rao, who is the father of the accused-petitioner. There was a dispute about his properties, which lead to the present incident. This is the reason why learned counsel submits that no offence is made out. He submits that the lower Court committed an error in failing to discharge the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in Aman Kumar and Ors., V State of Haryana1 and argues that the outraging the modesty is not present in this case. Relying on para-13 of this judgment he submits that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. Therefore, the intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. He relies upon this paragraph and states that the act of pulling a woman and removing her dress and coupled with a request for sexual intercourse etc., would amount to outraging the modesty of a woman. He lays stress on the fact that the intention is the most critical factor. In this case he reiterates that the offence is not made out.
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the application and states that in the lower Court these issues were not raised and that the only issue raised is that 1 (2004) 4 SCC 379 3 there is civil dispute and that therefore the petitioner should not be allowed to argue in this line. Even on merits, learned counsel submits that the offences under Section 506 and 509 are clearly made out and that the abusive language etc., are clearly spelt out in the statement of L.W.1-Badugu Nirmala and others, which are filed by the petitioners themselves.
This Court after hearing bot the counsel notices that the statement of L.W.1-Badugu Nirmala is corroborated in important aspects by the statement of L.W.2-Badugu Lakshmarao. L.W.2 is the father of the accused. Reading of the statement both in Telugu and the translated version shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the house on 20.05.2018 at about 5 p.m., abused the mother by calling her "Lanjakana" and also asked her 'why she still has not left the house'. He also stated that they would come next day, catch hold of her hair and push her out of the house. They also threatened to kill her. The offence occurred at about 5 p.m., and thereafter the complainant-L.W.1 and her husband went to the police station and lodged a complaint. L.W.2 corroborates the statement in many material particulars. The words used, the abuse and the threat were also spelt out by L.W.2. In the leading case of B.R. Bajaj V State of Punjab2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman can be culled 2 (1995) 6 SCC 194 4 out from the attending circumstances. In that case the accused was held found to have slapped a woman on her posterior in a gathering of people. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that an offence of outraging the modesty was made out in that case as this act of slapping her on her posterior in public glare is an affront to her sense of decency and dignity. It was held that the modesty is the "feminine decency and dignity" that a woman has. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relying upon the earlier case in State of Punjab v Major Singh3 held that the ultimate test is to view the act of an offender and see whether the said action could be held to shock the sense of decency of the woman. Even in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 13 it is held that the intention of the accused is the crux of the matter and the reaction of the woman is also very relevant.
If the present case is examined against the backdrop of these settled law on the subject, this Court finds that -
(a) That the complainant is claiming to be the mother / second wife of the Lakshmanarao (LW.2), who is the father of the accused.
(b) Because property matters were pending they barged into her house of 5 p.m., used filthy language and in 3 AIR 1967 SC 93 5 particular one abusive word (lanjakana) is recalled with clarity by both L.Ws.1 and 2.
(c) They abused her in filthy language and asked her why she was still in the house. They hit the husband (LW.2)
(d) Lastly, they threatened the complainant that if she was present in the house by the next date she would be dragged out by her hair and thrown out. Colloquially and in these parts of the country- this is a well known threat and abuse -to throw the person out by catching his/her hair If the sequence is seen with reference to the law cited earlier it is clear that the petitioner had an intention that was necessary to constitute the offence. They abused her and one specific word is reproduced earlier. The sequence -namely the abuse, the hitting of the woman and the threat that they would throw her out of her house by catching her hair clearly establishes the offences. L.W.1 states that she was abused and she was asked to leave the house. L.W.2 states that they did not give respect that she deserves as a "mother".
This court opines that outraging the modesty does not merely mean touching the woman with sexual overtones or pulling her clothes etc. The essence of the issue is the womanhood that is involved including her chastity, character, purity etc. The abusive language, the threats used clearly 6 show the "intention" of the accused. Loosely translated the word used against the complainant translates as a woman of loose character/prostitute/streetwalker/harlot etc. Such an abuse would definitely amount to questioning the character and the modesty of the woman. The feminine decency and dignity of the woman which are held to be the essence of a woman will be hurt if such abuse is hurled against her. It is a per se derogatory word and would hurt the decency of the woman. A cumulative reading of the facts and the sequence in this case leads this court to a conclusion that the offence of outraging the modesty is made out in this case. LW 2 highlights the fact that the accused did not give her the respect she deserved as the "mother" also.
In view of all of the above, this Court has come to conclusion that there are no grounds to discharge the petitioner. The lower Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. It is needless to say the opinions that are expressed are for the purpose of deciding this revision case only. They should not influence the lower court in any manner when it is called upon to decide the case.
7
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J Date:18.07.2019.
Ssv