“In the instant case, the appellant not only held hand of the victim, rather he also pulled her towards him by saying ‘I love you’. Such behaviour of a young boy with any girl particularly of rural area is considered highly objectionable,” the order said.
The court order continued, “Therefore, the act done by the appellant with the victim very much falls under the offence under Section 354 of the IPC as it was done by him to outrage modesty of the victim.”
Section 354 of the IPC deals with the penalty for assaulting or using criminal force against any woman to outrage her modesty.
The facts of the case in a nutshell. (Image generated using AI)
The court upheld the conviction of the trial court under the provisions of IPC, but modified the punishment from three years to one year, holding that the accused was a 19-year-old boy at that time and apart from holding the victim’s hands, pulling her, saying ‘I love you’ had not done any other objectionable act.
Noting that the accused is on bail, the high court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court and undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence.
Story continues below this ad
POCSO conviction set aside
The trial court, in its 2022 order, convicted the accused not only for outraging modesty but also for sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
However, the accused’s conviction under the POCSO Act, the high court found, was not “sustainable” as it was not proved that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident, but held that the special court committed no mistake in holding him guilty for the offence under section 354 of the IPC.
Background, arguments
The case stemmed from the alleged act of the accused of holding the victim’s hand, pulling her toward him, saying “I love you” when she was returning home from school, along with her younger sister and friend.
It was argued that the woman got scared and went inside a Mazar under fear after the incident.
Story continues below this ad
The state’s lawyer, Prabha Sharma, argued that the trial court’s judgment of conviction was “well reasoned”, based on evidence available on record and prayed for rejecting the appeal.
Advocate Punit Ruparel, representing the accused, argued that saying “I Love You” itself is not an offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
He further submitted that it cannot be held “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused held the hand of the victim with “sexual intent” and emphasised that despite this, the trial court convicted & sentenced him, calling it “perverse” and “contrary” to the evidence available on record.
Meaning of ‘modesty’
The high court noted that the term “modesty” is defined as the quality of being modest and, in relation to a woman, “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct”.
Story continues below this ad
Referring to the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English language, the court found it defines modesty as “freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency: a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct”.
The Oxford English Dictionary, the court noted, defines “modesty” as “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions”.
The court also referred to various previous judgments of the apex court and concluded that holding the hand of the victim and pulling her towards him, saying ‘I love you, ’ outrages the modesty of women.
The facts of the case in a nutshell. (Image generated using AI)
