STATE OF PUNJAB versus MAJOR SINGH

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 28-04-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

281! 
STATE QF PUNiil 
A 
v. 
MAJOR SINGH 
April 28, 1966 
II 
(A.K. SARKAR, C.J., ]. R. MUL>HOLKAR ASD R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
Indian Penal Code (.J5 of 1860), s. 354-Scope of-Relevancy of 
age of victim. 
Per Mudholkar, J.: Unde~ s. 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 
while the individual reaction of the victim to the act of the accused 
would be irrelevant, when any act done to or in the presence of a 
woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions 
of mankind, that act must fall within the mischief of the section and 
would constitute an offence under the section. [293 A-CJ 
Since the action of the accused (respondent) in interfering with 
and thereby causing injury to the vagina Qf the child, who was seven 
and half months old, was deliberate, he must be deemed to have in-
tended to outrage her modesty. (293 CJ 
Per Bachawat J: The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. 
Even a female of tender age from her very birth possesses the modesty 
\vhich is the attribute of her sex. Under the secti0n the culpable in-
tention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the 
\voman is very relevant, but its absence is not al\vays decisive. 
The respondent is punishable for the offence under the section 
because, by his act he outraged and intended to outrage whatever 
modesty the little victim was possessed of. [293 F; 294 B-C] 
Per Sarkar, C.J., (dissenting): Under the section the accused 
would be guilty of an offence if he assaults or uses criminal force 
"'intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there-
by outrage" the modesty of a woman. This intention or knowledge 
is the ingredient of the offence and not the woman's fC<'lings or reac-
c 
D 
E 
tion. The test therefore. would be whether a reasonable man will 
F 
think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to 
be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. [288 B. FJ. 
In the present case. there could be no question of the aocused 
having intended to outrage the modesty of the child or having 
known that his act was likely to have that result, because, though 
the victim is a "\\.'Oman" under the Penal Code, no reasonable man 
would say that a female child of that age was possessed of womanly 
G 
modesty. [289 GJ 
CRIMl~AL AP PELLA IE JURJSDICTIOS: Criminal Appeal No. 
54 of 1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the May 31. 1963 
of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 1962. 
Dipak D1111 Cha11dlt11ri and 
R. N. Sachthcy, for the appel-
lant. 
R 
• 
• 
• 
r 
. . 
' 
' 
A 
B 
l'tJlihll v. 
MAJol\ SINGH (Sarkar, C.J.i 
281 
A. S. R. Chari, for the respondent. 
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered. 
Sarkar, C.J. The question is whether the respondent who 
caused injury to the private parts of a female child of seven 
and half months is guilty under s. 354 of the Penal Code of the 
offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. In the High Court, 
the matter was heard by three learned Judges two of whom ans-
wered the question in the negative and the third answered it in 
the affirmative. Hence this appeal by the State. 
It would be convenient to set out the section at once. 
C 
S. 354. "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to 
I' 
any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be 
likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be 
punished with imprisonment of either description for a 
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or 
with both". 
"Criminal force" is defined in s. 350 of the Code and it is 
not in dispute that such force had been used by the respondent 
to the child. It is also not in dispute that the child was a woman 
within the Code for in the Code that word is to be understood 
as meaning a female human being of any age: sec ss. 7 and 10. 
The difficulty in this case was caused by the words "outrage her 
modesty". The majority of the learned Judges in the High Court 
held that these words showed that there must be a subjective 
element so far as the woman against whom criminal force was 
used is concerned. They appear to have taken the view that the 
offence could be said to have been committed only when the 
woman felt that her modesty had been outraged. If I have under-
stood the judgment of these learned Judges correctly, the test 
of outrage of modesty was the reaction of the woman concerned. 
These learned Judges answered the question in the negative in 
the view that the woman to whom the force was used was of 
too tende

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.