Facts of the Case:

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court. The conviction and sentence were challenged in an appeal, which was heard by the Additional Sessions Court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the accused filed a revision petition before this Court.

The case was brought to trial following allegations that, on the evening of 18th September 2011, while the complainant, a woman, was traveling in an autorickshaw with the accused, they assaulted her with the intent to outrage her modesty. The first accused allegedly pressed her left breast, and the second accused grabbed her belly, thereby committing an offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

Contentions of the Petitioner (Accused):

The defence counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution case was unreliable due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses. It was pointed out that the victim, PW1, had exaggerated her statement in court compared to her initial police statement, and that PW4, the victim’s mother, was a hearsay witness with no direct knowledge of the incident. The defence also highlighted the fact that material witnesses, such as PW2 (the autorickshaw driver), PW3 (a neighbour), and PW6 (the victim’s husband), turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution’s case. The defence further argued that the trial court and the appellate court had not properly considered these contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence, and that the case presented by the prosecution was based on a concocted story.

Contentions of the Respondent (Prosecution):

The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the testimonies of the victim (PW1) and her mother (PW4) were reliable and supported the charge of outraging the modesty of the complainant. The prosecution argued that even though some witnesses turned hostile, the core of the prosecution’s case rested on the consistent and credible evidence provided by the victim and her mother. The prosecution also dismissed the significance of the minor contradictions and omissions pointed out by the defence, citing the case law that such discrepancies should not undermine the overall credibility of the witness. The learned Public Prosecutor further opposed any leniency in sentencing, arguing that the punishment imposed by the trial court was reasonable in relation to the gravity of the offence.

Court’s Observation:

This Court observed that the power of revision is limited, and the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate court. The Court may only address issues of illegality and perversity in the lower courts’ decisions. In this case, the Court noted that the trial court and appellate court had rightly relied on the testimony of PW1 (the victim) and PW4 (her mother), both of whom consistently supported the allegation of assault and criminal force being used to outrage the victim’s modesty.

The Court referred to the legal principles established in various case laws, where it was held that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit the victim’s testimony if it is reliable. The Court also agreed with the lower courts’ finding that the contradictions in the testimony, such as omissions, did not diminish the overall credibility of the witnesses. The Court further noted that the minor discrepancies could be attributed to the passage of time, as the incident had occurred several years before the trial, which is natural and expected in such cases.

The Court emphasized that the offence under Section 354 of the IPC does not require the victim to prove physical injury, but merely the assault or criminal force with the intent to outrage the modesty of a woman. In this case, the Court found that the victim’s testimony, supported by the testimony of her mother, established that the accused had committed the offence by using criminal force to outrage the victim’s modesty.

The Court stated that such acts have a significant impact on women, leading to both mental and physical distress. It further emphasized that modesty goes beyond the physical aspect, encompassing moral and psychological dimensions as well. The sense of shame or embarrassment a woman experiences when her modesty is violated is referred to as moral modesty, while psychological modesty reflects her inherent sense of self-respect and dignity.

Court’s Order:

In conclusion, this Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC, finding no reason to interfere with the lower courts’ findings. However, considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the sentence, the Court modified the punishment. The trial court had imposed rigorous imprisonment for six months, which was affirmed by the appellate court. This Court, in the interest of justice, modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months, which it deemed reasonable in light of the facts of the case.

The Court further directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to serve the sentence. If they failed to do so, the trial court was instructed to execute the sentence without fail.

The revision petition was, therefore, allowed in part, confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the jurisdictional court for information and compliance.

Credits: Deeksha Rai