ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

162
“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 imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
find, or with both.”
The word, ‘modesty’ has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another V.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1059 has relied
upon the dictionary meaning of the word ‘modesty’. The Apex Court further
relied upon the case of State of Punjab V. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63,
wherein the apex Court has held that when any act done, in the presence of
a woman, is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of
mankind, it must fall within the mischief of section 354, I.P.C. The Apex
Court further held that it was needless to say, the “common notions of
mankind” referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by
contemporary societal standards. It was observed that the essence of a
woman’s modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the
modesty which is the attribute to her sex. Thus, relying on earlier case, the
Apex Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj’s (supra) case held that the ultimate test
for ascertaining whether 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. Applying the above test to the reported case,
KELU CHARAN BEHERA -V- STATE [S.K.MISHRA,J.]
the Apex Court held that it must be held that the alleged act of the
respondent in slapping the complainant on her posterior amounted to
“outraging of her modesty” for it was not only an affront to the normal sense
of feminine decency but also an affront to the dignity of the lady – “sexual
overtones” or not, notwithstanding.
7. Applying the aforesaid principle of appreciation to this case, it is
seen that the informant does not complain that the present petitioner aimed
the blow to her breast. Rather, she has very categorically stated that the
petitioner pressed the Lathi (Katha) on her neck and stood on it. Then the
petitioner’s wife dragged him. The injury was caused to her breast for the
action of the accused persons. It thus, appears that the injury to her breast
was caused accidentally. The injury, which was sustained by the injured on
her breast has not been attributed particularly to the present petitioner in the
sense that she has not stated that due to his assault she sustained the
injury. Rather she has stated that due to the assault of the accused persons,
she sustained the injury. In this case, this Court comes to the conclusion that
applying to the standard laid down by the Apex Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj’s
case (supra), it can not be held to be an affront to the normal sense of
feminine decency. It is further noted that in this case there is no suggestive