MAIN PAL versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 07-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 336 
MAIN PAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1696 of 2010 ) 
SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 452 and 354 - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - ss. 211, 212, 215 and 464 - Accused 
C charged with having entered the house of PW1 and 
assaulting her with intent to outrage her modesty - Evidence 
however indicated that accused assaulted PW1 's daughter-
in-law to outrage her modesty - Whether accused could be 
punished, for assaulting and outraging the modesty of PW1 's 
D daughter-in-law', even though he was not charged with any 
offence with reference to PW1 's daughter-in-law', on the 
ground that the error or omission in the charge did not 
prejudice the accused or result in failure of justice - Held, No 
-
The accused could not be punished for committing an 
E 
offence against PW1 's daughter-in-law when he was charged 
with having committed the offence against PW1 and the entire 
defence of the accused was with reference to charge of having 
committed offence against PW1 - New trial directed after 
charging the accused with the offence of outraging the 
F 
G 
modesty of PW1 's daughter-in-law. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Illustrations under a provision 
of a Statute -
Held: They offer relevant and valuable 
indications as to meaning and object of the provision and are 
helpful in the working and application of the provision. 
The appellant was charged with the offences of 
trespassing into the house of PW1 and attempting to 
outrage her modesty. The appellant pleaded not guilty to 
the said charge and claimed trial. The Magistrate held the 
H 
336 
MAIN PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 
337 
appellant guilty of offences under Sections 452 and 354 
A 
IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six 
months. 
One of the contentions urged by the appellant before 
the first appellate court and the High Court was that the 
8 
charge against him was that he attempted to outrage the 
modesty of Prakashi Devi (PW-1) whereas the evidence 
was to show that he attempted to outrage the modesty 
of Sheela Devi, daughter-in-law of PW1. He contended 
that as the charge levelled against him was not proved, 
C 
and as he was not required to defend himself against a 
charge that he assaulted and outraged the modesty of 
PW1 's daughter-in-law, he ought to have been acquitted. 
This was negatived by the appellate court and the High 
Court holding that an accused cannot take advantage of 
a technical defect in framing the charge. It was held that 
D 
mentioning the name of PW1 instead of the name of her 
daughter-in-law in the charge was an error that did not 
prejudice the accused-appellant. 
In the instant appeal the question for consideratiori 
was: When the charge was that the accused assaulted 
PW1 and outraged her modesty, but the evidence was 
that he assaulted PW1 's daughter-in-law to outrage her 
modesty, can the accused be punished, for assaulting 
and outraging the modesty of PW1 's daughter-in-law', 
even though he was not charged with any offence with 
reference to PW1's daughter-in-law', on the ground that 
the error or omission in the charge did not prejudice the 
accused or result in failure of justice. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. In the instant case, the charge was that the 
appellant committed trespass into the house of PW1, 
assaulted her and outraged her modesty. The accused 
E 
F 
G 
H 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(201 O] 11 S.C.R. 
A concentrated his cross-examination with reference to the 
said charge and elicited answers showing that he did not 
assault or outrage the modesty of PW1. The evidence of 
PW-1 and PW-2 was that the appellant did not touch or 
tease or abu5e PW1. Their evidence was that he touched/ 
B caught the hand of PW1 's daughter-in-law and when she 
raised an alarm, he ran away. When the charge was that 
the accused attempted to commit trespass into the house 
of PW1 with intent to outrage the modesty of PW1, the 
conclusion of the appellate court and the High Court that 
c there was no failure of justice if he is punished for the 
offence of having assaulted PW1 's daughter-in-law and 
outraging her modesty, is opposed to principles of fair 
play and natural justice embodied in Sections 211, 212, 
215 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
D [Para 11] [352-G-H; 353-A-D] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1.2. The principles relating to sections 212, 215 and 
464, CrPC, which are relevant to this case,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.