Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
Intention and knowledge are of course states of mind. They are nonetheless facts which can be proved. They cannot be proved by direct evidence. They have to be inferred from the circumstances of each case. Such an inference, one way or the other, can only be made if a reasonable man would, on the facts of the case, make it. The question in each case must, in my opinion, be: will a reasonable man think that the act was done with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with the knowledge that it was likely to do so? 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 expression "outrage her modesty" must be read with the words "intending to or knowing it to be likely that he will". So read, it would appear that though the modesty to be considered is of the woman concerned, the word "her" was not used to indicate her reaction. Read all together, the words indicate an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to outrage the woman's modesty, the emphasis being on the intention and knowledge. Another argument used to support the view, that the reaction of the woman concerned decided the question, was that the section occurred in a chapter of the Code dealing with offences affecting human body and not in the chapter dealing with offences relating to decency and morals. I think this argument is fallacious. None of the other offences against human body, which occur in the same chapter as s. 354, depends on individual reaction and therefore there is no reason to think that the offence defined in s. 354 depends on it. There is no incongruity in holding that the commission of an offence against human Raja Kumar Vs. State. Page No. 8 of 21.
14. In the instant case the appellant has intentionally applied force upon the complainant to commit an offence without her consent. The force has been applied by the appellant at the private body part i.e., breast, of the complainant. In State of Punjab (supra) it has been held that the intention of an accused person is to be inferred from circumstances as no direct evidence is available for the same. And the circumstances have to be evaluated by using test of a reasonable man. If the act committed by the accused satisfies the test of a reasonable man i.e, to say that any reasonable person would say that the act was done with the intention to outrage the modesty then the same would be so. In the facts of the present case the appellant has touched the private body part of the female which will shock the sense of decency a woman possess. The act of the appellant cannot tantamount to an accident as the appellant after grabbing the breast have also pushed the complainant towards the room which also leads to commission of another offence u/s 354A IPC. Touching of private part of women of a body is outrageous and reprehensible conduct. Such an act is against the public morals and decency. All the acts jointly culminated to evidence the sexual intent of the appellant. This court finds support from the judgment of the Raja Kumar Vs. State. Page No. 11 of 21. Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.12 16:44:59 +0530 story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the western and European countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, unfortunate that respect for womanhood in our country is on the decline and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing. An Indian woman is now required to suffer indignities in different forms, from lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be promoted and protected only if we deal strictly with those who violate the societal norms. The standard of proof to be expected by the court in such cases must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that reference also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity."