Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

a) That the assault must be on a woman.

b) That the accused must have used criminal force on PW4 and PW5.

c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage the modesty of PW4 and PW5.

The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from the birth of PW4 and PW5, they possess the modesty which is the attribute of their sex. From the test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman and the said principle is appreciated in case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC 194.

and

10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected.

Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A Victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. xxxx In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence coupled with the aforesaid decisions, the accused persons did not enter the house of PW1 to outrage the modesty of PW4 and PW5 rather from the evidence (chief in examination of PW4 and PW5) makes it very clear that they went to stop from breaking the granites and window glasses, at that time the accused persons pushed the PW4 and Pw5. This Court is of opinion that the pushing the PW4 and PW5 by the accused persons during the heat of quarrel accidentally in a wrongful manner, the same cannot be said to be with an intention to outrage their modesty and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sumit Kumar Gupta v. State of West Bengal decided in CRR 3236 of 2014, decided on 22.04. 2014.

32. Added to which, there is no single whisper in the complaint that the accused persons made an attempt to outraging the modesty as the complaint seems to be prepared with the full knowledge and ingredient of other offences as such so neatly and definitely the complaint was not written by the PW1 as her signature appears to be of one uneducated person. It is an afterthought i.e., 02/11/2017 the statement was given as accused persons jointly made attempt to outraging modesty (ಮಾನಭಂಗಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದಾಗ) at that time PW3/Kumar interfered and was beaten him by the accused persons with their hands.

34. Added to which, the accused persons as soon as entered into the house of the PW1 did not go and immediately held the hands of PW4 and PW5 and torn their clothes to infer that the accused No. 1 to 4 entered the house of PW1 for outraging of modesty of PW4 and PW5. Thus , the informant may complain of outraging the modesty of PW4 and PW5 but cannot complain of a definite apriori intention on the part of the accused persons to outrage the modesty of PW4 and PW5 on 01/11/2017.

35. Furthermore, there is no surrounding circumstances exist to convince this Court that the accused persons arrived at the spot with an intention to outrage the modesty of the PW4 and PW5. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove/establish that the accused persons entered into the house of PW1 for outraging the modesty of PW4 and PW5 by using criminal force thereby the point No. 3 is answered in negative.