Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of two individuals under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging the modesty of a woman. The accused had been convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, a decision later confirmed by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta. A revision petition was filed before the High Court challenging both the conviction and sentence. The court rejected the plea for acquittal but modified the sentence, reducing it from six months to five months of rigorous imprisonment. The accused were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to serve the modified sentence.

The case arose from an incident that occurred on September 18, 2011, in Pathanamthitta district. According to the prosecution, the complainant was traveling in an autorickshaw along the Nellikala-Vattakavu public road when the accused, Biju Abraham and Varghese George, entered the vehicle. The first accused allegedly pressed the complainant’s left breast, while the second accused grabbed her belly, leading to allegations of outraging her modesty.

Following the incident, Crime No. 756/2011 was registered at Aranmula Police Station, and a final report was submitted before the trial court. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with the trial, during which the prosecution examined seven witnesses and presented documentary evidence. The court convicted the accused under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to six months of rigorous imprisonment.

The conviction was challenged before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta, in Crl.A No. 11/2023, where the appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings. The accused then approached the Kerala High Court in a revision petition, arguing that the lower courts had failed to properly assess contradictions in the evidence. The petitioners contended that the conviction was based solely on the testimony of the complainant, while other witnesses had turned hostile, rendering the prosecution’s case unreliable.

The Kerala High Court examined the evidence presented during the trial and appellate proceedings. The court noted that the prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of the complainant, supported by corroborative witnesses. The complainant stated that she and her child entered an autorickshaw, which was later boarded by the accused. During the journey, the first accused pressed her left breast, while the second accused grabbed her belly.

The complainant’s mother, cited as PW4, stated that she had called her daughter on the phone at the time of the incident. The complainant, instead of attending the call, inadvertently pressed the call button, allowing PW4 to hear her distress. The court recorded that this piece of evidence corroborated the complainant’s testimony.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the autorickshaw driver and the complainant’s neighbor, who were cited to corroborate the complainant’s testimony. However, PW2 (autorickshaw driver), PW3 (neighbor), and PW6 (husband of the complainant) turned hostile. The court stated that a case does not fail merely because some witnesses turn hostile, provided there is other credible evidence. The judgment noted, “The law does not insist on plurality of witnesses. If the testimony of the injured witness is wholly reliable, the absence of independent witnesses does not provide a clean chit to the accused.”

Regarding inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, the court observed that minor contradictions do not necessarily discredit a witness. The court referred to legal precedents that established, “Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case should not ordinarily permit the rejection of evidence as a whole.”

The court further examined the legal requirements under Section 354 IPC, which criminalizes assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman. The provision requires the prosecution to establish that the accused used force or committed an act with the intention or knowledge that it would outrage the modesty of the victim. The court recorded that the trial court had applied this legal standard and found that the actions of the accused met the threshold required under Section 354 IPC.

The judgment discussed the societal importance of laws protecting women’s modesty, stating, “Indian society places great emphasis on the modesty of women, and any act that insults this modesty is a matter of serious concern.” The court also referred to past legal precedents where it was held that the offence under Section 354 IPC is not limited to physical acts of violence but extends to any conduct intended to demean or insult a woman’s dignity.

The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, it modified the sentence imposed by the trial court, reducing it from six months to five months of rigorous imprisonment. The court recorded that the occurrence had taken place in 2011, prior to the 2013 amendment to Section 354 IPC, which introduced enhanced punishment. The unamended provision prescribed imprisonment of up to two years or a fine or both. Taking these factors into consideration, the court decided to reduce the sentence.

The court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to undergo the modified sentence. The judgment stated, “The accused shall surrender before the trial court within two weeks from today to serve the modified sentence.” The Kerala High Court further ordered that in the event of failure to surrender, “the trial court shall take necessary steps to execute the sentence without fail.” A copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the jurisdictional court for compliance.

Case Title: Biju Abraham & Anr. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 1196 of 2024
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen

[Read/Download order]