Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) Moenuddin, S/o Sh. Mohd.

Islam, R/o H.No. 2296/13, Block L-

1st Sangam Vihar, Delhi.

e)   Offence complained of          : 323/341/506/509/34 IPC

f)   Plea of the accused            : Accused pleaded not guilty

g) Final order                      : Accused Akram convicted for the
                                      offences u/s 323 IPC and 341/34
                                      IPC.

                                       Accused Shamima, Achchan Ali
                                       and Moinuddin convicted for the
                                       offences u/s 323// IPC.

                                       Accused persons acquitted of the
                                       offences u/s 509// IPC.

h) Date of final order              : 06.03.2023


       BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. Consequently, the FIR was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").

CHARGE

3. Vide order dated 13.04.2015, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 509/341/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS

4. Vide order dated 22.03.2019, in compliance to the provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "the Code"), the accused persons were called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of i) The present FIR, ii) DD No. 11A dated 29.03.2013 and

Re: Sections 506 and 509 IPC

31. Section 506 of IPC provides the punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 of IPC and said section is reproduced below:

"Criminal intimidation - Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."

34. On reading of Section 509, it is apparent that in order to bring an act committed by a person within the purview of Section 509, the act must have been committed with the intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman. Thus, intention is the basic ingredient of the offence under Section 509 IPC.

35. It is most pertinent to note that the act of insult alleged against the accused persons itself is unclear. Whilst complainant states that her sister's clothes were torn, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated said fact. Similarly, the witnesses have deposed that the accused Akram hurled abuses at the complainant but the exact nature of these abuses is unclear. It mostly appears that there is an altercation between the parties where there was a verbal spat that was involved. The main question that needs to be answered is whether the accused hurled abuses at her with an intent to outrage her modesty. Mere utterance of abuses does not automatically amount to outrage of modesty. In Abhijeet J.K. vs. State of Kerala [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703], the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that there is a distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract Section 509, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient and insult to modesty of a woman is required to have been done.