JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of Munisf Magistrate, Alwar, dated November 20, 1974, in Criminal Case No. 253 of 1973, by which he acquitted the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Cede and convicted him for offence under Section 352 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 105 (rupees one hundred and five) only. 2. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are as under:- Hetram the accused respondent was prosecuted for offence under Section 354 1PC. On the allegations that on 18-11-1971 when the prosecutrix Smt. Shanta Bai alighted from the train at Kherliganj and started moving towards the gate on the platform some body touched her breast. Smt. Shantabai took it to be an accidently touch and continued moving forward. After a minute or so her breast was again touched and thereafter admitted to snatch the Gold-chain in her he was made thereupon she raised a cry and the witnesses saw the accused withdrawing his hand from the breast of Smt. Shantabai. A case under section 354 IPC was registered. A case was investigated and the accused was tried for offence under section 354 IPC. On appreciation of evidence of PW 1 Smt. Shantibai, PW 2 Ramswaroop, PW 3 Shankerchand PW 5 Fakir Chand. The learned Judge come to the conclusion that First Information Report was filed and the accused was caught redhanded and the incident has happened in the manner narrated by the prosecution witnesses. But curiously the learned Judge held that the act of the accused does not fall under section 354 IPC as he had no intention to out-rage the modesty of Smt. Shantidevi because of the fact that the accused tried to reach the neck of Mst. Shantidevi for snatching the gold chain and as there was no charge for attempt to theft the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondent. 3. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the State has argued that when the accused put his hands twice on the breast of Shantidevi then it is implicit that he had knowledge that by putting so, he will out-rage her modesty. Mr. Purohit emphasised that it has come in evidence of Mst. Shantadevi that the accused repeated the process of putting the hand on the breast and did not stop after doing it once. 4. Mr. Mr. Purohit emphasised that it has come in evidence of Mst. Shantadevi that the accused repeated the process of putting the hand on the breast and did not stop after doing it once. 4. Mr. Purohit pointed out that under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to outrage the motive under section 354 also contemplates that even there is no intention but if it is proved that there was knowledge then also the offence is made out. 5. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 reads as under: 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 fine, or with both." 6. In replying to the submissions of Mr. Purohit, Mr. Tibriwal learned counsel for the accused submitted that the intention of the accused as per findings of the Magistrate was to snatch the ornaments from the neck of Mst. Shantabai and therefore, there was neither any intention nor any knowledge to out-rage the modesty of Mst. Shantabai. Mr. Tibriwal pointed out that mere touch of body of a female cannot be equated to outraging her modesty and if in process of making attempt to snatch ornaments from neck, the breast was pressed then it cannot be said that the accused has any intention or knowledge for outraging the modesty of Mst. Shantadevi. 7. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 8. In the instant case the statement of Mst. Shantabai is very important. She has stated that the accused twice threw his hands on her breast. When once the accused did it she was alarmed and by the time she could catch hold of the accused the accused disappeared. It was repeated for the second time and then she cried and some persons, who were near her, arrested the accused then and there. The lady has come in train and after leaving the train she was trying to come out to her house. It was repeated for the second time and then she cried and some persons, who were near her, arrested the accused then and there. The lady has come in train and after leaving the train she was trying to come out to her house. Her actual words are as under:- " nqckjk fdlh us esjh Nkrh ij gkFk ekjk vkSj og gkFk mlus esjs xys rd igaqpkuk pkgkA " 9. This is important to note that the effort to santch away the golden ornaments from the neck of the complainant Mst. Shantibai was not done from the back side of the neck. The accused repeatedly threw his hands on the breast and since it was done twice after the first attempt, atleast, it will be presumed that he had knowledge that if he would attempt front front side it would result in mode station of the lady as hand would touch the breast which is a delicate part of the lady. It would not be proper to mention here what Bachawat Justice observed in State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC Page 63 . "The assence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses a modesty capable of being outraged. Whoever uses criminal force to her with intent to outrage her modesty commits an offence punishable under S. 354. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive, as for example, when the accused with a corrupt mind stealthily touches the flesh of a sleeping woman. She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anaesthesia, she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act, nevertheless, the offender is punishable under the section. 10. In the same judgment another learned Justice Mudholkar, observed as under:- "This obviously does not refer to a particular woman but to the accepted notions of womanly behaviour and conduct. It is in this sense that the modesty appears to have been used in section 354 of the Indian Penal Code." 11. 10. In the same judgment another learned Justice Mudholkar, observed as under:- "This obviously does not refer to a particular woman but to the accepted notions of womanly behaviour and conduct. It is in this sense that the modesty appears to have been used in section 354 of the Indian Penal Code." 11. In the light of the above observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that any person who puts his hands on the breast of a lady not by an accident or slip but with knowledge, he would be guilty of out-raging the modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. I am not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Tibriwal that in the instant case it was only an accident. As already held earlier, two circumstances are important to be noticed. Firstly, the attempt of taking or snatching the golden ornaments lying in the neck of lady was not done from the back side of the neck but the accused put the hand on the breast.Secondly when once be put the hand on the breast & was unsuccessful, he must be knowing and it will be presumed that he had the knowledge that if the second time he makes the same attempts from the front side then his hand would come in the contact of the breast of lady and her modesty would be out-raged. The second repeated attempt of putting the hand on breast conclusively preves the knowledge of the accused though the primary intention may be to snatch the golden ornaments. 13. Since the knowledge is sufficient for holding the accused guilty of out-raging the modesty of a woman, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate committed serious error in ignoring the important and vital aspect of law. In view of this, the judgment, of the learned Magistrate requires modification. 14. The result of the above discussion is that the accused is held guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside. 15. Mr. Tibriwal was then heard on the point of sentence. In view of this, the judgment, of the learned Magistrate requires modification. 14. The result of the above discussion is that the accused is held guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside. 15. Mr. Tibriwal was then heard on the point of sentence. He pointed cut that the accused had remained in jail for a period of about 19 days from 29-7-1972 to 16-8-1972 and since he is a young person of 21 years of age, he must be released on the sentence undergone. Mr. Tibriwal also pointed out that time of about one decade has elapsed in between the commission of crime and the judgment which is now being given against the offence is of i971. 16. Mr. Purohit has opposed the prayer of Mr. Tibriwal. 17. I have given thoughtful consideration on this aspect of the case. It is true that the offence was committed in 1971 and this appeal is being decided in 1982. It is also true that the accused has remained in jail for about 9 days. However, I am of the opinion that deterrent sentence is required in sex offences as the leniency in such matters results in putting premium and endangering the modesty of weaker sex. The ends of the justice would be met by sentencing the accused to four months rigorous imprisonment only. 18. Consequently the appeal is accepted and the accused in convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned above and sentence of four months rigorous imprisonment. The period undergone would be considered in the sentence under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. The trial Court would take steps to get the accused arrested and to send him to jail to undergo the sentence mentioned above.Appeal Accepted. *******