Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 108 (AP)

Pedda Geliche Divasekhar Reddy v. State Of A. P.

2000-02-16

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the proceedings in PRC no. 50 of 1999 as far as offence under section 354 of IPC is concerned. ( 2 ) 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. 00 a. 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 alteration ensured between them. In the meanwhile A-2 to A-4 joined A-1 and attacked the complainant 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 de facto 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 354 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 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) 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. 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. ( 4 ) 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 Cr. P. C. 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. ( 5 ) SECTION 354 of IPC is intended to punish a special vice 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. Behaviour which is inconsonance with 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 qua a woman. ( 6 ) IN the Supreme Court case of State of punjab vs. Major Singh, 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 mankind that must fall within Section 354 of ipc. ( 6 ) IN the Supreme Court case of State of punjab vs. Major Singh, 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 mankind that must fall 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. ( 7 ) RELYING on this judgment, the Supreme court in the case of Rupan Deal Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill observed that the element of test for ascertaining whether the modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender could be perceived as one which which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a wornan. The Supreme court aiso held that where the intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like any other ingredient for convicting the person but such an intention can be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. ( 8 ) IN this case, the allegation against the accused is that while the woman was intervening when the accused were beating her husband, they caused hurt to her also. In this case, the circumstances 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 sequence of events as narrated in the First information Report would show that the accused were motivated by anger at the husband of the victim and the victim herself for the wrong they perceived was done by them by trespassing into their land by carrying their bullock cart. There is not even a remote suggestion that the accused had an intention to offend the modesty of the woman or slight her feminine decency. ( 9 ) THE facts as alleged, even if they are accepted as true, do not appear to constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC. There is not even a remote suggestion that the accused had an intention to offend the modesty of the woman or slight her feminine decency. ( 9 ) 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 be abuse of process of law if the petitioner are made to go through the ordeal of facing the trial under Section 354 of IPC. ( 10 ) IN the result, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 354 of IPC is wholly unwarranted and the same is quashed and this petition is allowed and the cognizance shall be confined to the offence under section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.