Order Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. Heard. This revision is directed against the order dated 9-1-2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod in Criminal Appeal No. 114/2014, by which, the appellate Court has held the appellant guilty of commission of offence under Sections 354, 341 and 323of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution story, when the prosecutrix, P.W. 1 was going on her bicycle to her house at village Parsada on 23-6-2014 at about 2 p.m. near the canal, the applicant came across, wearing underwear and waist and obstructed the prosecutrix, dragged her towards nearby canal and assaulted, used criminal force and also hurled abuses and insisted on sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix lodged FIR in Ex. P.1 in the Police Station. The applicant was arrested, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed for alleged commission of offences under Sections 354-B, 354, 341 and323 of IPC and charges were framed against the applicant by the trial Court. Applicant was tried for commission of offences alleged. Vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-11-2014, the applicant was held guilty of the offences and sentenced 4 years R.I. under Section 354-B of IPC with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month and 1 month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days tinder Sections 341 & 323 of IPC. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal and the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. While conviction of the appellant under Sections 341 & 323 of IPC was affirmed, the appellate Court found that the offence under Section 354-B of IPC was not made out but the offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out. The conviction of the appellant was accordingly altered to that extent under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, as minimum sentence prescribed under the law. It is this order, which is challenged in this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the allegation of commission of offence of outraging modesty was not proved from the testimony of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1. It is this order, which is challenged in this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the allegation of commission of offence of outraging modesty was not proved from the testimony of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1. He submits that though, the prosecutrix has stated regarding hurling of abuses and slapping, that by itself would not satisfy the ingredients of commission of offence under Section 354, IPC, as there is no clear evidence to prove that whatever was done by the applicant, it was with an intention to outrage her modesty. He further submits that the evidence that the applicant insisted the prosecutrix to agree to sexual intercourse is liable to be disbelieved being improbable, contradictory and suffering from material omissions in the case diary statement. He also submits that the prosecutrix has exaggerated the incident and in the absence of any corroboration from other established and dependable circumstances, conviction of the applicant under Section 354 of IPC cannot be sustained in law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by submitting that the prosecutrix has very clearly stated regarding indecent activity of the applicant which was clearly intended to outrage her modesty. He submits that the aforesaid offence found to have been committed, the applicant has to be awarded minimum sentence of one year as provided under Section354 of IPC. 6. Section 354 of IPC provides for punishment for assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. What would constitute an act of outraging modesty would depend upon facts and circumstances of every case. The word "outraging modesty" has not been given any specific definition under the Code. Anything which affects the modesty of a woman, which may take place in many ways, coupled with the circumstances of the case, overt act, words used, may constitute an act of outraging modesty. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. Moreover, the reaction of the woman is also relevant. 7. FIR in Ex. P.1 lodged in the police station at 17.30 hours has been proved by the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, wherein she has clearly stated that she had gone in the police station to lodge report and on her report, the police registered FIR and she has proved her signature. Moreover, the reaction of the woman is also relevant. 7. FIR in Ex. P.1 lodged in the police station at 17.30 hours has been proved by the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, wherein she has clearly stated that she had gone in the police station to lodge report and on her report, the police registered FIR and she has proved her signature. Investigating Officer, Mahesh Rajak, P.W. 8 has stated that on the report lodged by the prosecutrix, he recorded FIR in Crime Number 196/2014 and has proved his signature. The FIR has been lodged very promptly by the prosecutrix. The incident is stated to have taken place at about 2 p.m. and the FIR has been lodged at 15.10 hours i.e. only 1 hours after the incident. The police station is situated at a distance of 7 k.m. 8. The prosecutrix, P.W. 1 has stated that while she was returning from Post Office to her house on 23-6-2014 in the afternoon at about 2 p.m., the applicant, while crossing her, addressed "Bhabhi" (sister-in-law), she got threatened and speeded up her bicycle but then the applicant hurled abuses and she was pulled down. He caught her by hands and dragged her to nearby canal and her mouth was gagged. He repeatedly insisted her for sexual intercourse. When she gave cry, he threatened to kill her. Thereafter, she pulled up his waist and somehow rescued her and ran towards the road, where also the appellant came in and gave her a slap. When she tried to stop the passersby, one Lokeshwar and his wife Ameshwari stopped and arrived at the spot and caught hold of the applicant and thereafter, other persons also arrived at the spot. After that, report was lodged in the police station and she was subjected to medical examination also. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has been confronted with her diary statement, in which omission with regard to tearing off waist of the applicant, being slapped and attempt made to stop persons who were passing through, has been pointed out. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the omission with regard to slapping and tearing off waist of the applicant is very material omission and renders the entire prosecution story highly doubtful. 10. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence and consideration of submission, I am inclined to reject this contention. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the omission with regard to slapping and tearing off waist of the applicant is very material omission and renders the entire prosecution story highly doubtful. 10. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence and consideration of submission, I am inclined to reject this contention. The fact regarding tearing off waist and slapping the prosecutrix by the applicant, does not in any manner, demolish or cause any dent to the statement of the prosecutrix with regard to earlier overt act committed by the applicant. She has stated that though she tried to run away from the spot by speeding up her bicycle, the applicant pulled her down and she was caught hold by the applicant by hands and thereafter, she was dragged away from the road towards a canal and her mouth was also gagged. The prosecution has proved a number of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. Mahesh Rajak, Investigating Officer, P.W. 8 sent the prosecutrix for medical examination of injuries sustained by the prosecutrix after the incident. Report, Ex. P-5 proves that the prosecutrix had sustained as many as 6 injuries which included one bruise on her left cheek, mild swelling on both lips, pain in her hands and as many as three abrasions in her legs as also on left sole. True it is, these injuries are simple in nature, but then, these injuries proved by the prosecutrix lend support and credence to the evidence of the prosecutrix that criminal force was used on her. 11. The Very overt act of the appellant in obstructing prosecutrix on a road, hurling abuses and then dragging away from the road and taking her near the canal and then insisting her for sexual intercourse, is clearly a criminal overt act of assaulting and using criminal force with an intent to outrage her modesty. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371 : AIR 2004 SC 1677 ), in almost similar circumstances held the offence of outraging modesty proved as below:-- "12. "What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. 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. "What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. 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. Modesty in this section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge that modesty is likely to be outraged is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word "modesty" is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edn.) defines the word "modesty" in relation to a woman as follows: "Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; Shamefast; Scrupulously chaste." 13. Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to a woman, "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". It is the reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions. ................... xxx................... 14. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English language defines modesty as "freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct". In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.), the meaning of the word "modesty" is given as "womanly propriety of behaviour; 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". 15. In State of Punjab v. Major Singh ( AIR 1967 SC 63 ), 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, the majority view was 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 must fall within the mischief of Section354, IPC. Needless to say, the "common notions of mankind" referred to have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. Needless to say, the "common notions of mankind" referred to have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. It was further observed in the said case 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 case ( AIR 1967 SC 63 ), the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The above position was noted in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995 AIR SCW 4100). When the above test is applied in the present case, keeping in view the total fact situation, the inevitable conclusion is that the acts of the accused-appellant and the concrete role he consistently played from the beginning proved combination of persons and minds as well and as such amounted to "outraging of her modesty" for it was an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency" ...................xxx................... 13. The prosecutrix has remained emphatic and coherent on her evidence. Prompt report was lodged and injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix prove that the applicant used criminal force on the prosecutrix with no other intention except to outrage her modesty. This overwhelming evidence on record fully justifies the order passed by the appellate Court in holding the applicant guilty of commission of offence under Section 354 of IPC and law obliges minimum sentence of 1 year to be imposed. In view of the discussion, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision, which is accordingly, dismissed.