LexAJAHAR ALI versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 911 AJAHAR ALI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No.1623 of 2013) OCTOBER 4, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B s. 354 - Criminal force to outrage modesty of woman - c Accused convicted and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with fine - Held: Provisions of s.354 have been enacted to safeguard public morality and decent behaviour - If any person uses criminal force upon any woman with the intention or knowledge that woman's modesty will be outraged, 0 he is to be punished - Courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay as the same cannot be any ground for reduction of sentence - Appellant has committed a heinous crime and with the social condition prevailing, modesty of a woman has to be strongly E guarded - It is not a fit case so as to give benefit of 1958 Act to appellant - As appellant had been awarded only six months imprisonment, considering the matter under the JJ Act, 2000 would not serve any purpose at such a belated stage - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Delay. F CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Art. 136 - Criminal appeal - Concurrent findings of three courts below - Court declines to reappreciate the evidence. The appellant was convicted u/s. 354 IPC and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for having forcefully caught hold of a sixteen year old girl on her way and planted a kiss 911 G H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A causing a cut over her lower lip. His appeal and revision were dismissed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, respectively. In the instant appeal, leniency was pleaded by the 8 appellant on the ground that the incident occurred 18 . years back and both the complainant and the appellant had settled in their respective lives. It was further submitted that on the date of the incident, the appellant was a juvenile and in view of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, he ought to have C been tried before the Juvenile Justice Board; and that, in all circumstances, the Court should give the appellant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The complainant who had no enmity against the appellant has been very consistent about the factual matrix not only in her statement u/s. 161 of CrPC but also before the court and had supported the E prosecution case fully. Her version was corroborated by several other witnesses and the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, this Court declines to re-appreciate the evidence. [Para F 7) [917-D-F] 1.2 The provisions of s. 354 IPC have been enacted to safeguard public morality and decent behaviour. Therefore, if any person uses criminal force upon any woman with the intention or knowledge that the woman's G modesty will be outraged, he is to be punished. Courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay as the same cannot be any ground for reduction of sentence. In the instant case, the High Court has opined that appellant has been dealt with H very leniently and it was a fit case where the High Court AJAHAR ALI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 913 wanted to enhance the sentence but considering the fact A that the incident occurred long back, the High Court refrained to do so. [Paras 14, 20 and 21] [920-A-B; 921-F, G-H; 922-A] State of Punjab v. Major Singh, 1966 SCR 286 = AIR 1967 SC 63; Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2004 (2) SCR 8 237 =AIR 2004 SC 1497; Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (2) SCR 287 = AIR 2004 SC 1677; Turkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar, 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 10 = (2006) 8 SCC 560; Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar C Pal Singh Gill & Anr. 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 237 =AIR 1996 SC 309; Chinnadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1996 SC 546; State of U.P. v. Shri Kishan, AIR 2005 SC 1250, Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 3242 - referred to. D 1.3 The appellant has committed a heinous crime and with the social condition prevailing, the modesty of a woman has to be strongly guarded and keeping in view the manner in which the appellant behaved, it is not a fit case where the benefit of the Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.