JUDGEMENT 1. Gutturthi Eswara Rao, the accusced in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1997, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1997 on the file of Court of Session, Mahila Court, Visakapatnam, dated 25-9-1998 had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that the Inspector of Police, II Town Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam city laid charge sheet against the accused alleging that he trespassed into the house of Busha Ramayamma alias Bhanu P.W. 1 on 10-8-1996 at about 23.30 hours and outraged her modesty by touching her legs punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short referred to as 'IPC' for the purpose of convenience). The learned v Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakha-patnam, took the charge sheet on file and registered the same as P.R.C. No. 15 of 1996 and committed the same to the Court of Session. Visakhapatnam and the said Court had made over the same to the Mahila Court Visakhapatnam, and the learned Judge after framing the charges, recorded, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-3 and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that appellant accused committed offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448, IPC and both the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing appellant made the following submissions : 4. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P-1 and had pointed out that there is no reference to the alleged letter in Ex.P-1 and the aspect of throwing chilli powder into the eyes of the accused also had not been specified. According to the learned counsel , these are material omissions. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P-1 and had pointed out that there is no reference to the alleged letter in Ex.P-1 and the aspect of throwing chilli powder into the eyes of the accused also had not been specified. According to the learned counsel , these are material omissions. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W. 1 and had pointed out that there is no controversy that the accused filed a case against P.W. 1 and against her four brothers alleging that they beat him and caused injuries and the said case was pending in V Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in C.C. No. 388 of 1996. The learned counsel also pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 cannot be believed since the same is unnatural. At any rate P.W. 2 is an interested witness, the mother of P.W. 1 who is having enmity with the accused and hence, the same cannot be believed. The learned counsel also would submit that the learned Judge committed a grave error in relying upon such evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and also the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 the Investigating Officers. The learned counsel emphasized on the aspect that the letter spoken to by P.W. 1 in her deposition, was neither produced before the Court nor mentioned in Ex.P1 and this would throw serious doubt on the version of the prosecution. The counsel would submit that in view of the enmity only, this case had been foisted against the appellant accused. While concluding, the counsel would contend that mere tapping on the legs of the P.W. 1 and nothing beyond, may not amount to outrage the modesty of a woman and hence, the ingredients of Section 354, IPC are not attracted.The Counsel also would contend that as far as Section 448, IPC is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence and the evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard cannot be believed. 5. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would contend that the intention of the accused in entering the house at that odd hours and indulging in the acts spoken to by P.W. 1 would definitely made out to outrage the modesty of a woman and inasmuch as with the view of his committing an offence, since the appellant-accused entered the house, it would definitely amount to trespass within the meaning of Section 448, IPC. The learned counsel made elaborate submissions relating to the ingredients of Section 354, IPC and also placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63 : 1967 Cri LJ 1, Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 : 1996 Cri LJ 381 and Munna v. State of U.P., 1997 Cri LJ 274 : 1996 All LJ 1892. 6. Heard both the counsel. 7. The factual matrix narrated supra need not be repeated again. 8. P.W. 1 deposed that her husband deserted her and she is also having a son aged about 11 years and accused also is a resident of Kallupakalu and his house is situated behind their house and she has been running a tea stall and her name is Ramayamma and she is also called as Bhanu and the accused would be selling eatables. P.W. 1 further deposed that since the one month prior to the date of incident, flowers used to be thrown into her house during night time through the windows since the windows had no doors and she used to see the same in the morning and she has shown the flowers to her neighbours and also to her parents and they used to scold those unknown persons who are throwing flowers during night time into her house and after ten days the same was stopped and again it was continued. On one day she found a letter along with flowers thrown into her house and in that letter, it was written that if she is interested for sexual cohabitation, she should keep those flowers in her tuft as a signal of her acceptance. On one day she found a letter along with flowers thrown into her house and in that letter, it was written that if she is interested for sexual cohabitation, she should keep those flowers in her tuft as a signal of her acceptance. On seeing that letter, she wept and showed the letter to her neighbours and parents and the neighbours and parents advised her to purchase similar flowers and wear them in order to catch hold of the person who has thrown the flowers into her house and as per their advice, she purchased similar flowers and kept the same in her tuft in the evening and as advised she kept one stick on her side expecting that the person who threw the flowers will come definitely to her house thinking that she had accepted the offer. It was on 10-8-1996. That night at about 11.30 p.m. she was sleeping in her house without bolting the door from inside and she was alone sleeping in her house as her son used to go and sleep at her parents house as there was no electricity supply to her house. She further deposed that usually she used to sleep in her parents' house and return to her house early in the morning at 4 a.m. On the particular day, she slept alone in her house for the specific purpose of catching hold of the culprit who was in the habit of throwing flowers into her house. At about 11.30 P.M. on that night, the accused came into her house, woke her up by tapping on her legs. She had kept chilli powder and also a stick with her. The moment he came and tapped on her legs, she woke up and hurled chilli powder into his eyes and also beat him with a stick four or five times and came out of her house and raised the cries and when her neighbours started coming into her house, the accused came out of her house and started running away and by running, he fell down on a cot in front of her house and they caught hold of the accused and found and identified and took him to her parents house and made him to sit there. Then she went to the police control room and informed about the incident. The police came and took the accused to II Town Police Station. Then she went to the police control room and informed about the incident. The police came and took the accused to II Town Police Station. She also went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 statement. P.W. 1 also deposed that the accused received injuries when he fell down in the canal when he was trying to escape. 9. This witness was cross-examined at length and in the whole of the cross-examination, the quarrel between them relating to tethering cattle on the road creating nuisance had been suggested. But several suggestions were denied. However, in the cross- examination, P.W. 1 admitted that it is true that accused filed a case against her and her four brothers, alleging that they beat him and caused injuries and the said case is pending on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C. No. 388 of 1996. It was no doubt suggested that this case was foisted only as a counter blast, which was denied. 10. P.W. 2 is the mother of P.W. 1 who has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 in all material particulars relating to the pre- incident events also post incident events. This witness also deposed that on the date of incident, P.W. 2 and other neighbours also gathered in front of the house of the accused and in the meanwhile, the accused started running away and in that process he fell in the nearby drainage canal and then they carried him to their house and detained him there and in the meanwhile P.W. 1 went and brought the police. Even to P.W. 2 the same suggestions were put that because of tethering of the buffaloes on the road and causing nuisance, there were certain disputes and certain other suggestions were made that why certain misunderstandings between these families and why there were ill feelings and these aspects were denied. 11. P.W. 3 is the land lady of the house where P.W. 1 is residing and she deposed that P.W. 1 is running a tea stall in her house and the said house is situated behind her house and she also deposed in detail about the throwing of flowers into her house during night time and the other aspects relating to the same which are no doubt true incidental events. This witness also deposed about P.W. 1, showing a letter and the flowers thrown into her house and P.W. weeping and reporting the same and on their advice, P.W. 1 determined to sleep in that house in order to catch hold of the culprit and at mid-night there was galata in front of the house of P.W. 1 and then P.W. 3 and several others gathered there and by the time, she had gone there, the accused was found detained there and P.W. 1 gave report to the police, police had taken away the accused. She was also cross-examined and the same suggestions were put relating to the enmity between the families and the foisting of the case and the reasons why there were quarrels between P.W. 1 and the family members of the accused and she also denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence at the instance of P.Ws. 1 and 2 since they are close to her. 12. P.W. 4 is the Head Constable of II Town Police Station and on 10-8-1996 when he was on rounds in city during night, he received information through V.H.F. set from the control room about this case and on that information, he proceeded to Kallupakalu area and found accused detained in front of the house of P.W. 1 and when he questioned P.W. 1, she informed him that the accused attempted to outrage her modesty and she beat the accused and while accused was escaping, he fell down in the road side canal and hence, she has detained him. Then he had taken the accused to the II Town police station at about 12.30 mid-night and handed over to the Assistant Sub-Inspector, II Town Police Station. This witness was cross-examined. 13. P.W. 5 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, P.W. 5 deposed that on 10-8-1996 while he was in charge Station House Officer, at about 1 p.m. the Head Constable P.W. 4 brought P.W. 1 and the accused to police station. Accused had bleeding injuries on his person and he recorded statement of P.W. 1 and read over the contents to her and obtained her signature. Her statement is Ex.P1. Accused had bleeding injuries on his person and he recorded statement of P.W. 1 and read over the contents to her and obtained her signature. Her statement is Ex.P1. As the accused had injuries on his person, he sent him to hospital with requisition and he registered the statement of P.W. 1 as in Crime No. 205 of 1996 under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and issued F.I.R. copies to all the concerned. Ex.P-2 is the F.I.R. On the next morning, he proceeded to the scene offence and examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch Ex.P3. On 24-8-1996, he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. Subsequently, Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet in this case on the basis of his investigation. On the right of 10-8-1996 itself he went to hospital and recorded the statement of the accused also and he alleged in the statement that the brothers of P.W. 1 beat him and caused the injuries. 14. No doubt this witness admitted that on the statement given by the accused, he had registered a case in Crime No. 206 of 1996 under Section 324 read with S. 34, IPC against P.W. 1 and against her four brothers and he had investigated the said case also and charge sheet was filed and the same was pending trial. But he had denied the suggestion that the accused was unconscious when he was brought to the police station. But, however, this witness admitted that the accused was in hospital as in patient for 6 days. No doubt this witness also deposed that P.W. 1 did not state before him in her statement Ex.P1 that the letter was hurled into her house along with flowers and there is no reference to the letter at all in Ex. P1. This witness also deposed that P.W. 1 did not state in her report that she hurled chilli powder into the eyes of the accused. Ex. P1 report given by P.W. 1 reads as under : "I belong to Visakhapatnam, about 15 years ago, my maternal uncle B. Venkatarao married me. I was separated from my husband due to disputes arose between me and my husband about 10 years back. I had one boy aged 10 years. I live by doing cooly work. My husband is giving Rs. 250/- p.m. towards maintenance. I was separated from my husband due to disputes arose between me and my husband about 10 years back. I had one boy aged 10 years. I live by doing cooly work. My husband is giving Rs. 250/- p.m. towards maintenance. Since one month somebody is throwing flowers into my house for 4 times till today. I do not know who is throwing. I informed this to our neighours. On 10-8-1996 at about 11.30 hours in the night, which I am, sleeping also some person came, caught and pull my legs. I do not identify due to darkness. Which he is ready to fell on me I hit him with a stick lying by my side on his head and waist to depend myself and escaped from him came out and cried as thief ...... thief. Then while the neighbour are coming, the person inside has come out. Then I identified him. I identified him as Gutturti Eswararao, a resident of our street. While running away he fell into a canal.Then surrounding people caught him. They get him seated there and asked me to go and reported in the control Room. I went to Control Room and reported. The police in the Control Room sent me and him to the II Town Police Station. The said Eswararao received injuries due to the blows hit by me and due to the falling down in the canal. All of my street people are the witnesses to the above happened incidents. Out of those 1) Lakshmi 2) Kanaka 3) Gowri 4) Lakshmi and etc. will given evidence to the incidents seen by them." 15. On the strength of Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5, submissions were advanced at length by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are serious material omissions relating to throwing of letter along with flowers by the appellant through the windows into the house of P.W. 1 and throwing of Chilli powder by P.W. 1 into the eyes of accused on the fateful day and hence, the evidence cannot be believed. 16. The appellant as accused was charged with Sections 448 and 354, IPC. As far as the events that happended prior to the incident are concerned, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is clear and categorical on these aspects. 16. The appellant as accused was charged with Sections 448 and 354, IPC. As far as the events that happended prior to the incident are concerned, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is clear and categorical on these aspects. It may be that P.W. 2 is the mother of P.W. 1 and interested witness, but the evidence of interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground only, but the same may have to be scrutnized with utmost care and caution and nothing beyond. Apart from this evidence, the evidence of P.W. 3 is also available. At the odd hours appellant as accused entering into the house and touching the legs of the P.W. 1, it cannot be with any other intention. The evidence of P.W. 1 is clear and categorical. It is pertinent to note that immediately, the accused was caught hold of and was detained. This aspect is well supported not only by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 but also the evidence of P.W. 4 the Head Constable. 17. Section 354 IPC deals with assault or criminal force of woman with an intent to outrage her modesty and reads as hereunder : "Section 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." 18. The Andhra Pradesh State Amendment reads as hereunder : Andhra Pradesh :- The following section shall be substituted namely,- "354. The Andhra Pradesh State Amendment reads as hereunder : Andhra Pradesh :- The following section shall be substituted namely,- "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 shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine : Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years, but which shall not be less than two years." Vide Act 6 of 1991." Section 351, IPC deals with Assault and reads as hereunder : "Section 351. Assault :- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault." 19. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that at about 11.30 p.m. on the night, the accused came to her house, woke her up by tapping on her legs and no doubt she has further explained how she had thrown chilli powder on him and also beat him with a stick and the other events. 20. In Major Singh case (supra), the Apex Court in majority opinion expressed that: "The test of a woman's individual reaction to the act of the accused must be rejected and it would not be easy to lay down a comprehensive test but about this much there is no difficulty that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that the act must fall within the mischief of S. 354, IPC." 21. This view is also followed in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill, case (supra), the Apex Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment held : "Since the word "modesty" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. This view is also followed in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill, case (supra), the Apex Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment held : "Since the word "modesty" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct. The word 'modest' in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary as "decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shamefast". Webester's Third New International Dictionary of the English language defines modesty as "freedom from coarsensess, indelicacy or indencency, a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct." In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Ed) the meaning of the word 'modesty' is given as womanly propriety of behavior; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions. In State of Punjab v. Major Singh case (cited 1 supra), a question arose whether a female child of seven and a half months could be said to be possessed of 'modesty' which could be outraged. In answering the above question Mudholkar J. who along with Bachawat J., spoke for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 353, IPC. Needless to say, the 'common notions of mankind' referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. The other learned Judge (Bachawat, J.) 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 of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case (1 supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, 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. When the above test is applied in the present case, keeping in view the total fact situation, it cannot but be held that the alleged act of Mr. Gill in slapping Mrs. Bajaj 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." 22. In Munna case (supra), where the accused entered into the house of his neigbour in a broad day light and caught hold of both hands of lady in an effort to outrage her modesty, it was held that no lenient view can be taken even if it was first offence committed by the accused. Awarding fine of Rs. 1,000.00 was held to be not proper. 23. Apart from the charge under Section 354, IPC, the accused also was charged with Section 448, IPC which deals with punishment for house trespass. It is no doubt true that in Ex.P-1, the throwing of letter along with the flowers and also the throwing of chilli powder on the accused on the fateful day had not been specified. But it is pertinent to note that the substance intact had been clearly narrated in Ex. P-1. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 also is categorical and the very fact that the accused was detained at the spot and was taken to the police station, which was submitted to P.W. 4, also would support the version of the prosecution. 24. Apart from this aspect of the matter, this Court also had given its anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the learned Judge and all the aspects had been taken into consideration by the learned Judge and the learned Judge also observed that it is a fit case to impose sentence of more than the sentence imposed, but had taken lenient view, in view of the fact that the appellant accused has got five small children and also the old ailing mother and there is no one else to look after his family. Taking the same into consideration, the learned Judge thought of imposing the minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 354, IPC and also rigorous imprisonment for six month under Section 448 IPC. But, however, sentences were directed to run concurrently. Taking the same into consideration, the learned Judge thought of imposing the minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 354, IPC and also rigorous imprisonment for six month under Section 448 IPC. But, however, sentences were directed to run concurrently. 25. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to disturb any of the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam in S.C. No. 17 of 1997 and accordingly, the criminal appeal shall stand dismissed. It is needless to say that the appellant-accused is entitled to set off for the period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by him. The bail bonds the appellant-accused shall stand cancelled. The appellant-accused shall serve rest of the sentence. Appeal dismissed.