Mohd. Abdul Azeem vs State Of A.P.

The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days vide judgment in S.C.No.75 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009 passed by Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Sessions Judge’). However, the appellant was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 506 and 509 of IPC

The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the husband of P.W.2 filed a complaint stating that in the morning of 20.12.2006 at about 7.30 a.m, while his wife P.W.2 was sweeping the verandah, the appellant who was residing in the first floor as tenant caught hold of her hand and tried to kiss her with an intention to outrage her modesty. She cried for help and P.W.1 and others went to the spot and on seeing them, the appellant fled. For such acts of appellant, complaint was made and the Police Madannapet registered Crime No.162 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of IPC.

During the course of examination, the learned Sessions Judge has examined the victim as P.W.2, who stated that the appellant was a tenant in the first floor and on 20.12.2006 , he came down to the verandah where she was present and caught hold of her hand and tried to kiss. She shouted for help and P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 arrived. PW 1, 3, 4, 5 stated that they heard PW2 shouting and when they went there, they found the appellant fleeing from the place.

On the basis of the said allegation of catching hold of her hand and trying to kiss P.W.2, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty as stated supra.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court failed to take into consideration the defence Exs.D1 to D7, which are the complaints lodged before the Collector and Commissioner of Police against their house owners P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ex.D1 is the complaint addressed to the Collector on 16.12.2006 by the wife of appellant that their house owners are harassing her without providing water. Admittedly, there are owner and tenant disputes between P.Ws.1, 2 and the appellant and his wife. It is the specific case of the appellant that he was targeted for the reason of compliant that was lodged four days prior to the present compliant against them. The wife of appellant has already lodged complaint Ex.D1 on 16.12.2006 and the present complaint making allegations of catching hold of the hand of P.W.2 was made after four days i.e., 20.12.2006. He further submits that all these aspects were not taken into consideration. However, the appellant is now aged 72 years and in the event of the Court finding him guilty as sentenced, may take a lenient view.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in fact, the act of the appellant in catching hold of the hand of the appellant and trying to kiss her would amount to an offence under Section 354 of IPC and the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.

It is an admitted fact that the appellant is the tenant of P.Ws.1 and 2 and there were disputes in between them regarding the appellant and his family members staying in the said house as tenants. The compliant made against P.Ws.1 and 2 by the appellant’s wife was marked as Ex.D1, it is apparent that there were disputes in between P.W.2 and the appellant’s family. However, during the course of cross-examination, P.Ws.1 and 2 totally denied that there were any disputes in between their families and they were in fact very cordial and families were visiting one another.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the back ground of the complaint made against them appears to be tainted cannot be believed. Admittedly, due to differences between the families, appellant’s wife went to the extent of filing complaint against P.Ws.1 and 2 four days prior to the present complaint against the appellant. It would give rise to any amount of doubt whether the said incident of catching hold of hand of P.W.2 has taken place as stated by her.

P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 stated that they had gone to the verandah where P.W.2 was present on hearing her cries. All the witnesses are the family members and friends of P.W.1, for which reason, the tainted version to help PW1 and 2 and their interestedness cannot be overlooked. The act attributed is catching hold of the hand and though P.W.2 alleges that the appellant tried to kiss her, nothing is specifically stated by P.W.2 as to what the actions are or how the appellant went about trying to kiss her. Section 354 of IPC reads as follows:

“354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with impris-onment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 194, in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, it is discussed about the meaning of the word ‘modesty’ and what act of a person would amount to outraging such ‘modesty’ of woman. Their Lordships have held that from the dictionary meaning of ‘modesty’ and the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Major Singh’s case, it appeared that the test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.

Applying the above test as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that catching hold of the hand of P.W.2 amounts to outraging her modesty. Both for the reasons of their enmity amongst families and specifically as there was no mention about any acts intending to outrage her modesty and also the complaint itself being suspicious in the background of differences, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC vide judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.75 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009. Since the appellant is already on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.