Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Vilas And Ors. on 1 September, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Ram Vilas and ors.
FIR No. 868/98
P.S. : Defence Colony
U/S 323/354/34 IPC
THE JUDGMENT
1. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 15.10.1998
2. SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 21/2
3. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 16.09.1998
4. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Ms. Champa Devi
5. NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : 1. Ram Vilas s/o
Mahender Tiwari,
2. Harish Chander
Tiwari s/o Sh.
Vishwanath.
3. Kamlesh Tiwari w/o
Sh. Harish Chander
Tiwari.
4. Poonam Tiwari D/o
Sh. Harish Chander
Tiwari.
FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 2
All R/o House no. 293, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF :U/S 323/354/34 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
8. DATE OF RESERVE OF JUDGMENT : 30.08.2011
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Accused Ram Bilas and Kamlesh are convicted for offence u/s 323/34 IPC and accused Poonam and Harish Chander Tiwari are acquitted.
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 01.09.2011 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.1998 at about 3.00 p.m. at house no. 293A, Ist Floor, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention /intending to insult the modesty of the complainant Dhan Kaur used criminal force against her and caused simple injuries upon her. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 3
complainant against all accused persons and investigation was carried out.
2. Charge sheet under Section 323/354/34 IPC was filed in the court, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C and vide order dated 20.08.1999, notice for offence under Section 323/354/34 IPC was served on accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.02.2011.
4. PW1 Om Parkash Sharma deposed that no incident took place in his presence. One day he went to the hospital AIIMS for treatment of her paralysis. Police and complainant Champa met him in the hospital. Complainant was in injured condition. He does not know anything more about this case. He is not an eye witness of the incident. Police never met him and never recorded his statement. Thereafter, Ld. APP for state sought permission of the court to crossexamine the witness as he turned hostile and resiling from his previous statement. In his crossexamination conducted by FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 4 Ld. APP for state he denied the suggestion that on 16.09.1998 at about 03.00 p.m. all the accused present in the court caused simple injuries to complainant Champa Devi and outraged her modesty in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he is not deposing against the accused persons as he has been won over by them. Statement MarkA, is read over to the witness, he denied to have make any such statement before the police.
5. PW2 complainant Champa Devi deposed that she is an illiterate lady and th cannot read and write. One day perhaps it was 28 day, month she does not remember five years back she was present at her house. At about 3 p.m. she was called by Kamlesh, the accused now present in the court and when she came outside she started abusing her and started beating her and turned her clothes. The accused Poonam now present in the court was also with the accused Kamlesh at that time and she also beat her. The accused Harish Chander now present in the court also abused her at that time and accused Ram Vilas assaulted her with a danda on her head, her younger sister Bimla Shrama was also present at the time of incident. Vijay and Om Parkash took her to the hospital. Her sister Bimla Sharma rescued her from all the accused persons. She does not remember whether police recorded her statement or not. She voluntarily stated that police inquired from her about FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 5 the incident and obtained her RTI on a paper and the same was read over to her before obtaining her thumb impression on Ex. PW1/A, bears her thumb impression at point A. She was medically examined in the AIIMS and got treatment from there. The accused persons used one danda, and a balti in assaulting on her. The accused Ram Bilas turned her blouse by pulling it on her breast. In her crossexamination, she deposed that the incident took place in house no. 293A. Blouse was turned by Ram Bilas from front side and she does not remember the colour of the blouse. She denied the suggestion that accused Poonam was not present at the time of incident and not involved in that incident. She admitted as correct that they and all the members of her family used to look towards the house or inside the house of the accused persons residing in house no. 293. She further denied the suggestion that she used to pickup quarrel daily with the accused persons. She also deposed that the balti was thrown on her by accused Kamlesh. Doga was used by accused Poonam in assaulting on her.
6. PW3 ASI Sukhdev Prasad was the Duty Officer. He deposed that on the day of incident he received a rukka through Ct. Bhagwat Prasad sent by HC Himmat Singh. He further deposed that on the basis of rukka he registered the present FIR. He produced the original copy of FIR in the court which has FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 6 been exhibited as PW3/A. His endorsement on the rukka has been exhibited as PW3/B. As he was a formal witness, no crossexamination was conducted by defence counsel.
7. PW4 Dr. Monika has duly proved MLC Ex. PW4/A. In her crossexamination conducted by counsel for accused Ram Bilas she deposed that the injury laceration on the skull and no other external injury was there. Vitals were normal.
8. PW5 Bimla Sharma deposed that she does not remember the date but it was in sometime in the year 19981999. She was residing with her sister Champa Sharma at Masjid Moth as construction work was going on at her house in the same vicinity. The accused Kamlesh present in the court started abusing her sister. When they came out Kamlesh hit her sister with iron bucket. The accused Ram Bilas hit her sister with bamboo piece of cot. The husband of Kamlesh also raised lalkara to kill her sister. Her sister received injuries on her head and blood was oozing out from the injury. She was shifted to hospital. She had not gone to hospital. She identified all the accused persons present in the court. She also deposed that she had signed certain FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 7 documents at the instance of police on that day. Seizure memo of bamboo piece is Ex. PW5/A and same bears her signature at point B. Police had taken away the bamboo piece and bucket. If shown to her, she can try to identify the case property. At this stage, a danda and iron bucket shown to witness which is correctly identified by her. Danda/bamboo piece is Ex P1 and bucket is Ex. P2. In her crossexamination conducted by ld. defence counsel for accused Ram Bilas she deposed that it is correct that bamboo piece and bucket were not sealed by the IO and same are produced today in the court in unsealed condition. She and her sister, the complainant, were inside their house and came out on hearing abuses given by Kamlesh. Champa was standing adjacent to dividing wall. It was at distance that a bamboo blow was possible. He admitted that Ram Bilas was also standing adjacent to dividing wall and distance between them, she cannot tell in feets. She denied the suggestion that both were standing touching each other. She also stated that she does not understand feets and meters. She cannot tell which part of the head of complainant received injury, however, it was on the head. Police came at the spot. She had signed the documents. She said she cannot tell whether her statement was reduced in writing by police, and she cannot tell whose statement was recorded by IO. She cannot tell whether site plan was prepared by police. She cannot tell as to whether Vijay FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 8 Sharma was called by police or his statement was recorded by the IO. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely being the sister of complainant. She further denied the suggestion that lathi and iron bucket are not the same which recovered by police and seized by police. She also said that she earlier stated that she cannot identify bamboo but on seeing it she realized that it may be same.
9. PW6 Vijay Sharma deposed that 16.09.1998 at about 23 p.m. he was present outside his house. He heard noises and reached there and found that hot words exchange were going on between Champa, Ram Bilas, wife of Harish Chand and after sometime Ram Bilas brought a bamboo piece of cot and hit Champa Devi due to impact she fell down. He helped her and accused Ram Bilas ran away from the spot on seeing him. He informed police on 100 number and they shifted her to AIIMS as police had not reached in time. He identified all the accused persons. He can identify the case property if shown to him. At this a danda and iron bucket shown to witness which is correctly identified by him. Danda/bamboo piece is Ex. P1 and bucket is Ex. P2. In his crossexamination conducted by counsel for accused Ram Bilas he deposed that it is correct that bamboo piece and bucket were not sealed by the IO and the same are produced today in the FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 9 court in unsealed condition. He had reached to the spot as he was residing in the near vicinity. Both the parties complainant and accused persons were at their own houses when occurrence took place. Only one small dividing wall was there. Champa Devi was standing adjoining with wall and accused Ram Bilas was standing also adjoining to wall and it was 2 feet distance between them. Lathi blow was given at head of Champa Devi. He was watching the incident from front side. It hit in the middle of the head where the injury was sustained. He had not witnessed any other attack of any of accused persons except a lathi blow by Ram Bilas. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in the court. He further denied the suggestion that bamboo is not the same. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated Ram Bilas in the present case.
10.PW 7, Ct. Bhagwat Prasad, deposed that on 16.09.98 he was posted at PS Defence Colony as a constable. On that day he alongwith IO at about 3:35 pm on receipt of DD no. 45 went to house no. 293 A, Masjid Moth. There nobody met them. On inquiry they came to know that injured had been taken to AIIMS by PCR van. He alongwith IO went to AIIMS in emergency department. IO recorded the statement of injured Smt. Champa and handed over the rukka to him Ex. PW2/A for registration of the case after making FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 10 endorsement on rukka. After registration of the case he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went to house no. 293 A, Mazjid Moth. There one iron bucket and danda was found and the same was taken into possession by the IO in his presence and same Ex. PW5/A. The accused persons namely Vijay, Ramvilas, Harish and Vimla were arrested by the IO. The personal search of the accused Harish and Ram Vilas was conducted by the IO in his presence vide memo Ex. PW 7/A and Ex.PW7/B which bears his signatures respectively at point A. He can identify the case property if shown to him. At this stage one danda and iron bucket is shown to the witness which is already Ex. P1 and P2. The witness has correctly identified the case property. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he alongwith IO reached at the spot after receiving DD at about 3:45 pm. He alongwith IO remained at the spot for 5 to 7 minutes and on inquiry when they came to know that the injured has already been taken to AIIMS. When they reached at the spot IO inquired some neighbors and thereafter, on inquiry went to AIIMS. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. He further denied the suggestion that he alongwith IO never went to the spot.
11.PW8 IO SI Himmat Singh deposed that on 16.09.98 he was posted at PS FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 11 Defence Colony as HC. On that day he was on emergency duty. On receipt of DD no. 45 B, he alongwith Ct. Bhagwat Prasad went to house no. 293 A, Masjid Moth. There he came to know that injured was already taken to AIIMS. He alongwith Ct. Bhagwat Prasad went to AIIMS hospital. After taking permission from the Doctor he recorded the statement of injured Ms. Champa Devi Ex. PW2/A. He made his endorsement Ex. PW8/A which bears his signatures at point A and handed over rukka to Ct. Bhagwat Prasad for registration of the case. Thereafter, he went to the spot. Ct. Bhagwat Prasad came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him. He inspected the site and prepared site plan at the instance of Ms. Bimla Devi Ex. PW8/B which bears his signatures at point A. He seized one danda and one iron bucket same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/A which bears his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Bimla Devi and Vijay Sharma who took the injured Ms. Champa Devi to the AIIMS hospital. Thereafter, he arrested the accused persons namely Ramvilas, Harish and Kamlesh vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/C and PW/8/D which bears his signatures at point A respectively vide arrest memo of accused Kamlesh Ex. PW8/E. Accused Kamlesh and Ram Vilas were released on police bail which is Ex. PW8/F and PW8/G which bears his signatures at point A. On 17.09.98 he arrested the accused Poonam vide FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 12 arrest memo Ex. PW8/H which bears his signatures at point A and she was released on police bail. On 24.09.98 he collected the result of MLC of Ms. Champa Devi. Same is Ex. PW4/A. On 25.09.98 he recorded the statement of witness Om Prakash who also took the injured Smt. Champa Devi to AIIMS. He recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation challan was filed. At this stage the case property is shown to the witness. On seeing the same witness has correctly identified one danda Ex. P1 and one iron bucket Ex.P2. In crossexamination conducted by counsel for all accused persons he deposed that it is correct that accused and complainant are neighbors. Before this incident no complaint was received by him against accused persons made by complainant. He recorded the statement of Bimla Devi and Vijay Sharma. He does not know whether Champa Devi, complainant is patient of blood pressure. He denied the suggestion that complainant has himself fallen on bucket (balti) and injured herself. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had beaten the complainant with danda. He does not know whether there is enmity between the accused persons and the complainant. He further denied the suggestion that he had not made proper investigation in the case. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 13
12.The statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the allegations leveled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused Ram Vilas, Harish Chander Tiwari and Poonam stated that they were not present at the time of incident. There was only hot exchange of words between the complainant and the accused Kamlesh. There was 3 feet high wall in between their house and the house of complainant. Accused Kamlesh hanged her clothes on the rope of her roof. Some clothes fell on the roof of the complainant and when she asked her to return her clothes on which the complainant started quarrel and throw her clothes on the road. They further stated that they are falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons produced one witness in their defence.
13. DW 1, Smt. Sangeeta Sharma deposed that complainant is her relatives (Jethani). The above said case had registered falsely, as she wants to get vacated the house no. 293 B, Masjid Moth. All the accused persons are living on the ground floor at the said address. The incident took place on 16.09.98. She is living with three minor children. The one of the accused Kamlesh Tiwari is living with her as a elder sister. The complainant wants to separate the accused Kamlesh Tiwari from her and her child so she has registered FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 14 false case against all the accused persons. In her crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for State she deposed that she is a house wife. She reside at the aforesaid address house no. 293 B, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. The house bearing no. 293 A belong to the complainant Champa Devi and in the year 1998 she was residing there. Both the above mentioned houses are separated by a wall. She had one child in the year 1998. She used to take her child for tuition at around 3:00 to 3:30 pm. The complainant always used to quarrel with her on the issue to oust Kamlesh Tiwari from her house. But she did not make any complaint against the complainant. On 16.09.1998 the complainant Champa Devi came to the roof of her house as her clothes fell down on it, while she was climbing the wall she fell down. At that time she was in my room. She did not help the complainant when she fell down. They are not in talking terms with the complainant Champa Devi. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely as she has no good relations with the complainant. The accused persons are like her relatives and she has very close relations with them. On 16.09.1998 the police also came in the house of Champa Devi. She did not give any statement regarding felling down the complainant Champa Devi on the day of the incident. Police did not recorded her statement. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely as she has been won over by the accused persons and want to save them from the FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 15 prosecution.
14. I have heard rival contentions made at bar and meticulously perused and considered the record. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and they are liable to be convicted. On the other hand it is argued by counsel for accused persons that the accused are entitled to be acquitted. Whether offence punishable u/s 323/354/34 IPC is proved against the accused Poonam?
15. The complainant Champa Devi in her evidence stated that accused Poonam was also present with other accused persons at the time of incident and gave beatings to the complainant. However, the evidence of PW2 does not find corroboration from other two eye witnesses, PW5 and PW6. Neither the PW5 nor PW6 stated in their evidence that accused Poonam was also present at the time of incident and caused any injury to the complainant. Therefore, the presence of the accused Poonam at the time of incident is itself doubtful. She is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused Poonam is acquitted FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 16 for offence u/s 323/354/34 IPC.
Whether offence punishable u/s 323/354/34 IPC is proved against the accused Harish Chander Tiwari?
16.PW2 in her evidence in the court stated that accused Harish Chander Tiwari was also present at the time of incident and abused her. The other eye witness PW5, the sister of the complainant, also stated in her evidence that the accused Harish Chander Tiwari was also present at the time of incident and raised lalkar to kill her sister, PW2. On the other hand, an independent eye witness, PW6, stated in his evidence only about the presence of accused Kamlesh and Ram Bilas at the time of incident. His testimony does not disclose that accused Harish Chander Tiwari was also present at the time of incident. The complainant and her sister are related to each other and are interested witnesses, whereas the PW6 is totally independent witness, being the neighbor of parties. Therefore, his testimony is more credit worthy and raises serious doubts about the presence of accused Harish Chander Tiwari at the time of incident. Therefore, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused Harish Chander Tiwari is acquitted for offence u/s 323/354/34 IPC.
FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 17 Whether offence punishable u/s 323/354/34 IPC is proved against the accused Kamlesh and accused Ram Bilas?
17. All the three eye witnesses consistently deposed about the presence of accused Kamlesh and Ram Bilas at the time of incident. There is also consistent evidence of all three witnesses that the accused Ram Bilas got a bamboo piece and hit the complainant Champa Devi on her head. The MLC of Champa Devi has also been duly proved as Ex. PW4/A, showing simple injury. During the crossexamination of Dr. PW4, she also stated that the injury laceration on the scull was found and no other external injury was there. No credence can be given to testimony of DW1 as she is apparently an interested witness having very close relatives with accused persons and not having cordial relationship with complainant. Therefore, the participation of accused Ram Bilas in quarrel and causing injury to the complainant on her head by danda is proved beyond reasonable doubt and he is convicted u/s 323/34 IPC.
18.All the three public witnesses PW2, PW5 and PW6 stated in their evidence that the accused Kamlesh was present at the incident and the quarrel started between her and the complainant Champa. PW2 and PW5 attributed specific FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 18 role to accused Kamlesh and stated that accused Kamlesh hit the complainant Champa with iron bucket. However PW6 stated that he has not witnessed any other attack of any of accused persons except a lathi blow by accused Ram Bilas. The doctor PW4 opined that there is no external injury except laceration injury on the scull. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused Kamlesh hit the complainant Champa with balti however it is duly established by prosecution that she was present at the time of incident and quarrel started first with Champa with accused Kamlesh. Now it is to be seen whether there was common intention between the accused Kamlesh and accused Ram Bilas in causing injury to the complainant Champa.
WHETHER S. 34 IS ATTRACTED
19.Now I come to the aspect of the joint liability. Generally a person is responsible for his own acts not of others. However, in certain situations a person can be held equally liable for something not exactly done by him but by the others if the act is done with some common intention. The Indian Penal Code in its Chapter II deals with the GENERAL EXPLANATIONS and FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 19 provides for the vicarious liability in the provisions from S. 34 to S. 37. The said sections do not define new offences but generally explain that if an offence is done by more than one person in concert with each other then irrespective of the exact individual part played, each person would be liable as if each has committed the offence alone. The four sections bring out four different shades of the 'togetherness' of the accused persons. According to the aid provision when a criminal act is done by several person in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The basic ingredient is the 'common intention'. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 20 evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it prearranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be fore the commission of the crime. The true contents of the Section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 109), the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. As it originally stood the S. 34 was in the following terms: "When a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act was done by him alone". In 1870, it was amended by the insertion of the words "in furtherance of the common intention of all" after the word "persons" and before the word "each", so as to make the object of Section 34 clear. This position was noted in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (AIR 1945 Privy Council 118).
FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 21 In Hari Ram v. State of U.P., (SC) reported in 2004 (8) SCC 146 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deliberated on S.34 IPC and has held that the direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home charge of common intention prosecution has to prove common intention prearranged or on spur of moment. If two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself If common intention is proved that it is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The provision of Section 34 IPC is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. Section 34 IPC is applicable even if no injury is caused by a particular accused and it is not necessary to show some overt act on part of accused. (see AIR 1977 SC 109 and 1993 (3) RCR (Crl.) 319).
FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 22
20. Having considered the evidence in totality, I am of the considered opinion there was common intention formed at the spur of moment between the accused Ram Bilas and accused Kamlesh to cause injury to the complainant. Therefore, accused Kamlesh is also convicted under section 323/34 IPC.
21. As regard Section 354 IPC, Section 354 of IPC is intended to punish a special vice and an offence against public morality and decency. The essence of the offence is the intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of a woman. Modesty is the quality of being modest which in respect of a woman means decent in manner and conduct, chaste, distancing from indecency. Decency means propriety of behaviour. Behaviour which is in consonance with good taste which includes avoidance of obscene language and gesture and avoidance of undue exposure of person. It connotes respectability. Decorum means propriety of speech and manner and maintenance of dignity. Mere assault on a woman or causing hurt to a woman cannot constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC. The acts attributed to the accused must be accompanied by an intention to outrage the modesty of a woman. The acts attributed to the accused must have some special significance or connotation in respect of the woman qua a woman. (See Pedda Geliche Divasekhar Reddy v. State of A.P., (A.P.) 2000(3) R.C.R. FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors. 23 (Criminal) 341. In the present case, the complainant deposed that accused Ram Bilas turned her blouse by pulling it on her breast. However, she has not stated in her evidence that there was any intention on behalf of accused Ram Bilas to outrage her modesty. In this case, the evidence does not disclose that the accused had any intention to affront the dignity and decency of the complainant. Therefore, offence under Section 354 IPC is not established in the present case.
22. Put up for arguments on sentence on 03.09.2011 at 02.00 p.m. Announced in the open court on this st day of 01 September, 2011.
(PRIYA MAHENDRA) Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court South Delhi, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
FIR no. 868/98 P.S. Defence Colony, St. Vs. Ram Vilas and ors.