THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAMAN RAO      


CRIMINAL PETITION No.401 OF 2000  

 16/02/2000

Pedda Geliche Divasekhar Reddy
and others.

petitioner

The State rep. By its P.P.


respondent

<CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - - Sec. 482 - - Quash proceedings - - Preleminary    
enquiry for offence under S. 354 I.P.C. - - Mere assault on a woman or causing
hurt to a woman does not constitute an offence under S.354 - - Ingredients of
Sec.354 analysed - - Taking cognizance of the offence under S.354 quashed.

>HELD:

Her (victim's) version as found in her 161 of CrPC statement discloses that
while her husband and herself were passing through the field of the accused in
their double bullock cart the accused objected to the passing of the cart
through their field.  When her husband LW.1 sought to justify his action on the
ground that there was no other passage, the accused hit him with sticks.
According to the victim when she tried to intervene when the accused were
hitting her husband, they also hit her with sticks.  There is not even a hint
that the accused had any intention of outraging her modesty.

Section 354 of IPC is intended to punish as a special vise 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 .  Behavior which is inconsonance of 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 quo a woman.


Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.Prasada Rao,

Counsel for the Respondents: The Public Prosecutor.


:ORDER:
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeks quashing of the proceedings in PRC
no.50 of 1999 as far as offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned.
The relevant facts may be stated as follows:
On a complaint given by one Markapuram Narayana (L.W.1) N.P.Kunta police station
a case was registered in Crime no.20 of 1999 for the offences under sections
341,324,354 read with section 34 of IPC.  The facts as disclosed  from the
complaint are that on 17.4.1999 at about 10.00a.m. while the de facto
complainant Markapuram Narayana along with his wife Kanthamma were transporting
manure to his fields in double bullock cart and were passing through the land of
the accused, the latter objected for the cart passing through the land and a
wordy  altercation ensured between them.  In the meanwhile A2 to A4 joined A1
and attacked the complaint and assaulted with sticks.  It is further stated that
while some witnesses L.W.2, the petitioner herein  and L.W.3 went to rescue the
defacto complainant they were also assaulted with sticks by the accused.  In
this incident, L.Ws.1 to 3 sustained bleeding multiple injuries.  On the basis
of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police,N.P.Kunta P.S. filed a charge
sheet for the offence under section 324 read with section 34 of IPC against the
petitioners.  However, the learned Magistrate after perusing the charge sheet
seems to have taken cognizance of the offence under section 34 of IPC also.  It
is this taking cognizance  for the offence under Section 354 of IPC which is
sought to be quashed in this petition under Section 482 of CrPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that neither in the charge
sheet nor in the depositions of witnesses, there is any remote hint as to the
commission of an offence under Section 354 of IPC and as such, as far as the
offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned it may be quashed.  The learned
Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that the statements of relevant witnesses
disclose that there is nothing to show that an offence under Section 354 of IPC
is alleged against the accused.
I have gone through the statements of L.W.2 Markapuram Kanthamma, who is a lady
in respect of whom the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence
under Section 354 of IPC.  Her version as found in her 161 of CrPC statement
discloses that while her husband and herself were passing through the field of
the accused in their double bullock cart the accused objected to the passing of
the cart through their field.  When her husband LW.1 sought to justify his
action on the ground that there was no other passage, the accused hit him with
sticks.  According to L.W.2. when she tried to intervene when the accused were
hitting her husband, they also hit her with sticks.  There is not even a hint
that the accused had any intention of outraging her modesty.

Section 354 of IPC is intended to punish as a special vise 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 .  Behavior which is inconsonance of 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 quo a woman.
In the case of  STATE PUNJAB V. MAJOR SINGH(1), His Lordship Justice Mudholkar  
held that any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly  suggestive
of sex  according to the common notions of a woman is clearly suggestive of six
according to the common notions of mankind  that must be  fell within section
354 of IPC.  In the same judgment, His Lordship Bachawat,J. observed that the
essence of a women's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possess the
modesty which is the attribute of her sex.
Relying on this judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ  
V.KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL (2) observed that the element of test for ascertaining
whether the modesty has been outraged  is the action of the offender such as
could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a
woman.  The Supreme Court also held that where the intention or knowledge is one
of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other ingredient
for convicting the person but such an intention has to be inferred from the
attending circumstances of a given case.
In this case, the allegation against the accused are that while the woman was
intervening  when the accused were beating her husband, they caused hurt to her
also.  In this case, the circumstance as set out in the complaint do not
disclose that the accused had any intention to affront the dignity and decency
of the alleged victim.  On the other hand, a plain reading of the allegations in
the complaint would go to show that the accused beat and caused hurt to the
alleged victim merely because she intervened when they were beating her husband.
The consequence of offence as narrated in the first information report would
show that the accused were motivated by anger at the husband of victim and the
victim herself for the wrong they perceived was done by them by trespassing into
his land by carrying their bullock cart.  There is no even a remote suggestion
that the accused had an intention to offend the modesty of a woman or slight her
feminine deceny.
The facts as alleged , even if they are accepted as true, do not appear to
constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC.  It would sub serve the ends of
justice if the petitioner is not made to go ordeal of facing of trial under
Section 354 of IPC.
  In the result, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 354 of IPC is
wholly unwarranted and this petition is allowed and the cognizance shall be
confined to the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

?1. AIR 1967 SC 63
2. 1995 SCC (CRL) 1059