LexPREMIYA @ PREM PRAKASH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 769 PREMIYA @ PREM PRAKASH A v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 2008) " SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 8 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA J.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 354 - Essential ingredients - Held: Person assaulted . c must be a woman - Accused must have used criminal force on woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty - Mere knowledge that modesty of woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such out- rage alone for its object - On facts, from the evidence of pros- D ecutrix, it is clear that accused outraged her modesty but did not raped her - Thus, taking into account the evidence and other aspects, conviction of accused u/s 376 altered to one u! s. 354 - Accused having undergone two years of sentence, custodial sentence would be the period already undergone. E s. 228-A - Object of - Held: Is to prevent social victim- ization or ostracism of victim of sexual offence - It makes print- ing or publishing name of any matter which may make known --1 the identity of any person against whom offence u/ss 376, 376- A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been F committed punishable - It would be appropriate that in the iudgments of Supreme Court, High Court or lower Court, name of victim should not be indicated - Thus, on facts name of victim is not mentioned. Offence of rape - Meaning of G . According to the prosecution case, on the fateful ~ day, the appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix. She tried to resist but the accused threatened to kill her. She 769 H 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R A again cried for help and PW-2-aunt-in-law came there. Thereafter, accused fled from the place of occurrence. Next day FIR was lodged. The prosecution was medically examined. The investigation was carried out. The wit- nesses were examined. Trial court relying on the evidence B of prosecutrix and PW 2, convicted the accused u/s 376 IPC and imposed 7 years imprisonment. High Court up- held the order. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1 On a close reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the accused outraged the mod- esty but had not raped her. Prosecutrix has not stated specifically about the act, but has loosely described as "fondling". There was no unexplained delay in lodging 0 the FIR. So far as absence of the injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix is concerned, admittedly she was a married lady. So far as the enmity with aunt of husband of the prosecutrix is concerned it is un-natural that a mar- ried lady belonging to the rural areas would falsely impli- cate the accused with whom she or her husband had no E enmity. [Paras 9 and 10) [774-D-F] 1.2 In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate in- F tention of having such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC G are that the person assaulted must be a woman; that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intend- ing thereby to outrage her modesty.(Para 12) [775-F-G] State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63 - re- H ferred to. PREMIYA@ PREM PRAKASH v. STATE OF 771 RAJAS THAN 1.3 Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence A punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be commit- ted by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demon- B strated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circum- stances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured wit- c ness and her testimony should receive the same weight. In the instant case after careful consideration of the evi- dence, the trial court and the High Court have found the accused guilty. But the offence is under s. 354 IPC. The convic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.