Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Sadashiv Lokhande against his conviction by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Special Case No.39/1995, confirmed on appeal. The applicant was convicted for offences under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the applicant slapped a minor girl, Chandrakala (PW-2), and thereby outraged her modesty and insulted her as a member of a Scheduled Caste. The FIR was lodged by Ganga (PW-1), the mother of the victim, based on the victim's disclosure. The trial court and appellate court found the evidence sufficient to convict. In revision, the High Court examined the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Both witnesses consistently stated that the applicant only slapped the victim and nothing more. There was no evidence of any sexual gesture, word, or act indicating intent to outrage modesty. Further, there was no evidence of any caste-based insult or that the incident occurred in public view. The High Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC were not made out as slapping alone, without any accompanying conduct, does not constitute an assault with intent to outrage modesty. Similarly, for Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution failed to prove intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in public view. The court found the conviction perverse and based on improper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the applicant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Essential Ingredients - The prosecution must prove assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty; mere slapping without any sexual overtone or gesture does not constitute the offence - Held that the evidence of slapping alone, without any accompanying act or word indicating intent to outrage modesty, is insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 354 IPC (Paras 1-3). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Intentional Insult - Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act, 1989 - Requirement of Intent to Humiliate in Public View - The offence requires intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in any place within public view; mere slapping without any caste-based slur or public element does not attract the provision - Held that in the absence of evidence of caste-based insult or public view, conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) is unsustainable (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is sustainable based on evidence of slapping alone without any intent to outrage modesty or caste-based humiliation.
Final Decision
Revision allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Applicant acquitted.
Law Points
- Section 354 IPC requires assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty
- mere slapping insufficient
- Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act requires intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in public view
- no evidence of caste-based insult
