Judgment :- V.K. Bali, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner - Vasudevan was tried for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. After the trial on the offences mentioned above, he was held guilty and convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also held guilty and convicted under Section 451 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There was a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. out of the final realized. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18th February, 1995 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikara vide order dated 9th August, 1996. It is against these two orders, the present criminal revision petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that even if one is to go by the statement of the prosecutrix Saraswathy, examined as PW1 and take her entire statement as gospel truth, no case under Section 354 IPC can be made out against the petitioner. There appears to be considerable merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. The statement of PW1, the prosecutrix in the present case when translated into English would read as follows: "Examination in Chief: I know the accused Vasudevan. I was manhandled in the incident involved in this case. The incident occurred inside the kitchen of my house. The incident occurred at 6.00 PM on 5-4-1991. Myself along with my children were taking food at the time of the incident. The accused caught hold of my hair and slapped on my left cheek. I was slapped by asking as to whether you need a way. The beating was on the left cheek. Pain developed on the portion where I was slapped. My brother's son was present at the time of the incident. He was standing outside the house. Hearing my cry, he came to the spot. Apart from him, Maniyal also saw the incident. He was collecting coconut in the neighbouring house. The beating was on the left cheek. Pain developed on the portion where I was slapped. My brother's son was present at the time of the incident. He was standing outside the house. Hearing my cry, he came to the spot. Apart from him, Maniyal also saw the incident. He was collecting coconut in the neighbouring house. At the time of incident, there was nobody in the house other than myself and my children. I felt humiliated by the act of the accused entering into my house and assaulting me. The accused has assaulted me because of the dispute regarding the way. After the incident, I went to the police station at 8'O clock on the next day morning. My husband had gone for his work on a bus. There was nobody else in the house. The statement which I had given was recorded by the police. This is my signature F.I.S. is marked as Ext.P1. Cross Examination: I know the accused for the last 4 years. Making local alcohol, drinking it and creating trouble, are his main activities. I don't know as to whether he is having any other job. I don't know about his source of income. It is not known to me as to whether the accused is going for any work. My husband is working as the cleaner of G.P. Bus. The accused is the conductor of that Bus? No it is not true (Answer). The incident took place at about 6.00 PM. My husband who goes for work in the early morning returns to house by 9'O clock or 10'O clock in the night. I had revealed everything to my husband. I asked him to complain about the incident to the concerned authorities. He replied to me to wait till the next day morning. The accused is residing on my adjacent north. Our way is through the immediate north of the property of the accused. We are using that way. The accused had entered the house by asking me as to whether you need a way. The Panchayath had given the way through the property of Plamoottil Baby. The way had not been created through the property of the accused. The way had been arranged had not been taken for the purpose of the way. I had not stated to the police that the way was set up by taking the property of Vasudevan also. The Panchayath had given the way through the property of Plamoottil Baby. The way had not been created through the property of the accused. The way had been arranged had not been taken for the purpose of the way. I had not stated to the police that the way was set up by taking the property of Vasudevan also. I had stated the police that the accused had assaulted me by saying that the boundary of Vasudevan's property had also been taken. The accused is saying like that. That property had not been taken. Contusion had occurred at the portion where I had been slapped. I was under treatment in the Hospital. I had seen the doctor on afternoon. After giving statement at the police station, I went to the hospital. I went to hospital due to pain. At about 1.00 PM, I went to Kayarnkulam Government Hospital. I forget the time of my examination by the doctor. Immediately he examined me. Within five minutes he examined me. I had stated to the doctor as to who had assaulted me. I told the doctor that I had pain over my head. As per my belief, the doctor had taken down it in writing. I saw the doctor writing. Hearing my cry, the people had gathered at some distance away from my house. The incident occurred inside my house near to the kitchen. On the boundary of the way towards my house, the trees belonging to the accused were standing, it is put to you that you had cut down those tree? It is not true (A). Before the incident the accused has associated with my husband. He was not in the habit of coming to my house. I don't know as to whether there is any enmity other than cutting open of the way, I put it to you that such an incident had never been occurred and falsely this case was instituted due to the reason that the accused had not surrendered a portion of his property for way? It is not true. (Answer)." A reading of the statement of the prosecutrix in chief examination and cross examination would clearly manifest only a case of causing simple hurt to Saraswathy, PW1. Not a single word has been spoken by Saraswathy that Vasudevan had outraged her modesty. It is not true. (Answer)." A reading of the statement of the prosecutrix in chief examination and cross examination would clearly manifest only a case of causing simple hurt to Saraswathy, PW1. Not a single word has been spoken by Saraswathy that Vasudevan had outraged her modesty. Section 354 of IPC reads as follows: "Sec.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." Even though, it is true that assault or criminal force to woman is one of the essential pre-conditions for applicability of Sec.354 IPC, but the same has to be with an intend to outrage her modesty or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. The second element or ingredient of the offence i.e., intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, is completely missing in this case. A case of pure and simple hurt has been converted into an offence under Section 354 IPC, which is wholly impermissible and illegal. The order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Magistrate dated 18th February, 1995 and the one passed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 9th August, 1997 holding the petitioner guilty u/s.354 IPC and convicting him as mentioned above is set aside. Petitioner is held guilty u/s.323 IPC. Petitioner shall also be held guilty u/s.451 IPC. But, considering the fact that the occurrence had taken place in 1991 and in the manner aforesaid, the petitioner has already undergone a protracted trial spanned over a period of about 14 years, it would be too inequituous to send the petitioner at this stage to serve a jail term. That being so, while holding the petitioner guilty under Sections 323 and 451 IPC, he would be fined to pay Rs.3,000/- to the defacto complainant, Saraswathy-PW1 and in default of payment of fine as mentioned above, he would undergo the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month concurrently both under Sections 323 and 451 IPC. The revision stands disposed of in the manner aforesaid.