JUDGEMENT A.C. Sengupta, J. :- This revisional application is directed against the order dt. 6-8-86 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Burdwan in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1986 of that Court which the present appellant preferred against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months on each of the charges under Ss.323 and 354, I.P.C., the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently. As the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, the said appellant has preferred the present revisional application. 2. The findings of facts of both the courts below are that in the afternoon of 24-3-83 Smt. Nandarani Mukherji while returning home with her disabled daughter in her lap the accused-appellant, the present petitioner abused her in filthy language and slapped her twice on her cheek as a result of which Smt. Mukherji fell down and that thereafter the present petitioner kicked her on the waist. These findings of facts of the courts below are based on consideration of evidence. The learned Advocate for the petitioner does not urge that there is no evidence to support findings. He wanted us to come to a different finding on the basis of the evidence adduced in this case which we are unable to do because the findings of both the courts below cannot be said to be vitiated either by absence of evidence or by non-consideration of evidence on record. So these findings cannot be challenged in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In the absence of any error or irregularity, procedural or otherwise we are unable to interfere with such findings of facts. Now it is to be considered as to whether on the basis of the facts it can be said that the offences punishable under Ss.323,I.P.C. and 354, I.P.C. have been brought home to the present petitioner. 3. As a result of being slapped by the petitioner Smt. Mukherji, as already noted, fell down on the road and having thereafter been kicked by the present petitioner on the waist Smt. Nandarani Mukherji suffered injury. The Courts below have found on the basis of the evidence of the medical officer and other evidence that Smt. Mukherji suffered injury as a result of being thus assaulted by the present petitioner. The Courts below have found on the basis of the evidence of the medical officer and other evidence that Smt. Mukherji suffered injury as a result of being thus assaulted by the present petitioner. So in view of such findings of facts the courts below have rightly found that an offence punishable* under S. 323, I.P.C. has been committed by the present petitioner who having received injury in the manner aforesaid must have suffered bodily pain thereby. 4. Now with regard to the findings of the Courts below regarding the alleged commission of the offence under S. 354, I.P.C. the learned Advocates for the petitioner contended that as there is no evidence to show that the accused had any intention to outrage modesty of Smt. Mukherji, the charge under S. 354, I.P.C. cannot be brought home to the accused. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence under S. 354, I.P.C. and an offence under S. 354, I.P.C. can also be committed by the person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such acts the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Now knowledge and intention are things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of such knowledge or intention or otherwise should be gathered from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence under S. 354, I.P.C. is said to have been committed. Smt. Mukherji whose husband is a Manager of a village Co-operative Society cannot be said to have come from a low social class. The learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roy argues that no offence under S.354, I.P.C. has been committed. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned Advocate after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, some of which have been noted above. The impugned acts of the accused were committed upon Smt. Mukherji who was coming by the road with her disabled child on her lap, when she only asked the daughter of the accused who was then taking water from a roadside tube-well not to discharge water in the manner she was doing because thereby the road was becoming inaccessible. The accused then slapped her and after she fell down on the road kicked her on the waist. The accused then slapped her and after she fell down on the road kicked her on the waist. The touching of the body of the person by the accused-petitioner in that manner gives rise to the reasonable inference that he had knowledge that by such act he would outrage the modesty of Smt. Mukherji. The accused who was seated in front of his house at that time could have used some sticks to assault Smt. Mukherji but he placed his hand on the cheek and his leg on the waist of Smt. Mukherji. These acts of the accused in the present case are clearly suggestive of sex. In the circumstances of the case some of which we have narrated above we are unable to interfere with the findings of the courts below that an offence punishable under S.354, I.P.C. was also committed by the accused. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roy contended that as the accused did the impugned acts in a fit of rage he should not be sentenced to suffer imprisonment but instead he should be sentenced to pay some fine only. After considering the circumstances of the case we are unable to uphold Mr. Roy's contention. Smt. Mukherji, the wife of the complainant who was coming by the road in front of the house of the accused with her disabled daughter in her lap asked the daughter of the accused-petitioner not to discharge water in the manner she was discharging from the tubewell as a result of which the road she was passing by was made inaccessible. Such statement of Smt. Mukherji cannot be accepted as reasonable ground for any provocation for a normal man. So in the present case we do not find any ground for showing any leniency in the matter of sentences. 6. In view of the finding we have made the present revisional application is dismissed. 7. Let the accused petitioner serve out his sentence. 8. Let the records go down expeditiously. 9. J. N. CHAUDHURI, J. : - I agree. Revision dismissed.