The Kerala High Court has held in a case that the offence of outraging the modesty of woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out only when the act of the accused is such that it is deemed to be outraging the modesty and decorum of a woman.

Facts of the case

The case relates to the alleged misbehavior of a primary school head teacher. It was alleged that the president of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) pulled the head teacher by her arm during a meeting and used obscene language. It was also alleged that he slapped the head teacher, causing an injury below her nose.

The trial court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment of one month and fine under Section 323 (punishment for causing hurt) of the IPC. He was sentenced to three months’ simple imprisonment and fine under Section 354 (assault or use of force to outrage the modesty of a woman). His appeal was dismissed by the sessions court.

Petitioner’s contention

The petitioner, while appealing to the High Court, argued that he had lodged complaints against the school management, and that the head teacher and other witnesses had conspired against him. He also said that the incident happened in a fit of rage and his intention was not to outrage the modesty of the woman.

Respondent’s contention

The head teacher accused the petitioner of misbehavior and said that he deliberately behaved in an insulting manner to outrage her dignity. According to her, the petitioner used obscene language during the meeting, pulled her by the arm and slapped her, causing injury.

Court’s observations

The Hon’ble  court quashed the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC in this case and said that to insult the dignity of a woman, it is necessary that the act of the accused should be such that it is considered objectionable to the decency of any normal woman.

The court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj vs K.P.S. Gill (1996) and State of Punjab vs Major Singh (1967). The Hon’ble  court said that to consider an act as an offence under Section 354, it is necessary that the act should have been done with the intention of insulting the dignity of a woman.

The High Court observed that the Apex Court in Major Singh (supra) had held as follows, “The test of the outrage of modesty must, therefore, be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. In considering the question, he must imagine the woman to be a reasonable woman and keep in view all circumstances concerning her, such as, her station and way of life and the known notions of modesty of such a woman.”

The court, while examining the statements of the witnesses, found that no other witness said that the petitioner held the hand of the head teacher and pulled her towards him. On this basis, the court concluded that the essential elements of the offence under Section 354 were not established in this case.

Decision of the court

The court quashed the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC. However, while upholding the conviction under Section 323, the court reduced the sentence of the petitioner from one month’s imprisonment to the term of imprisonment till the rising of the court. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to pay a compensation of ₹10,000 to the head teacher.

– Credits: By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur