HC drops charge of outraging modesty against Powai resident for lack of intention

The woman and some other residents of the society intervened in the fight, and during the brawl the petitioner allegedly pushed the woman

Mumbai The Bombay High court (HC) recently dropped the charge of outraging modesty of a woman against a Powai resident after observing that although he pushed the woman away during a scuffle by touching her chest, surrounding circumstances indicated that he had no intention to outrage her modesty.

The woman approached the Powai police, claiming that apart from assaulting her husband, her father and others, the petitioner touched her chest while pushing her during the scuffle (HT Photo)

“Intent to outrage or the knowledge that the offending act would outrage the modesty of the woman is the linchpin of the offence (of outraging modesty of a woman),” said the single judge bench of justice NJ Jamadar while dropping the charge of outraging modesty against Powai resident Sudhir Medhekar.

“In contrast, assault or use of criminal force to a woman simpliciter unaccompanied by such a state of mind qua the accused, may not fall within the dragnet of the offence punishable under section 354 of the Penal Code, though the accused may be liable for causing hurt,” the court added.

The Powai resident had moved high court after the metropolitan magistrate court on August 29, 2017 framed charges under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (outraging modesty of a woman) and 504 (intentional insult with an intention to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The woman approached the Powai police, claiming that apart from assaulting her husband, her father and others, the petitioner touched her chest while pushing her during the scuffle and on that basis the police booked him for voluntarily causing hurt and outraging modesty of the complainant etc. A separate FIR was registered based on a counter complaint lodged by the petitioner.

The petitioner had questioned framing of the charge under section 354. His counsel, advocate Pritam Runwal, had submitted that there was no intention on his part to outrage modesty of the woman and what was attributed to him had happened during a scuffle.

Runwal had pointed out that there was no pre-meditation and the alleged incident occurred at the spur of the moment. “In fact, the applicant was abused with reference to his caste and assaulted by the husband of the woman,” Runwal had added, maintaining that the charge under section 354 was not maintainable in absence of mens rea necessary to constitute the offence of outraging modesty.

HC accepted the contention. First and foremost, the court said, the quarrel between the two men was sudden and the woman reached the spot and tried to intervene and the act of pushing the woman was in the course of the scuffle, while Medhekar was grappling with her husband.

High court also took into consideration that the woman and the witnesses to the incident do not allege that his act of pushing her was accompanied by any utterances or gestures underscoring sexual overtures and there was no prelude to the occurrence which would indicate that the applicant had either an evil eye or had misbehaved with the woman.

In absence of intention to outrage modesty of the woman, the court said, the charge under section 354 was not made out against the petitioner even if the prosecution case was taken as it is generously.