SHANKUNTALA DEVI Vs. SUNEET KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt.Shakuntala Devi has felt aggreived from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge thereby declining to frame the charge under Section 354, Indian Penal Code (In short the IPC) against the accused on the flimsy ground that the prosecution had not placed sufficient material on record to prove that the modesty of the petitioner was outraged.

(2.) Before dealing with the facts of the case it must be understood that the Apex Court in the case of joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC page 339 and Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar, JT 1993(1) SC 1773 observed that while forming prima facie view the Judge has to confine himself within the limits prescribed. At that stage the Court is not to evaluate or appraise the evidence to come to the conclusion that the petitioner would ultimately get convicted. The Court is only to satisfy himself that the accused is involved in the commission of the crime. Prima facie case does not mean proof. Keeping this principle in view, we have to analyse the facts of this case to form an opinion whether modesty of the petitioner was outraged by the accused Sunil.

(3.) The intention and knowledge are state of mind but nevertheless this fact has to be proved. This fact, however, cannot always be proved by direct evidence. At times it can be inferred from the circumstnaces of each case. The outrage of modesty can be concluded if a reasonable man thinks that the act of the offender was intended to or was such that it appears likely to outrage the modesty of a woman. The reaction of the woman is very relevant in such a case.