RAMJILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-10-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No 12/83 whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sec. 450, 354 and 323 Penal Code and various sentences have been passed against him.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the report of the incident was lodged after 12 hours of the incident and that too after arrival of the police in the village on the information of the accused about his beating and at that time the statement of P.W. 1, Santra, was recorded and on that statement the case was registered against the appellant. The prosecution failed to give any explanation as to why the report was lodged after a delay of 12 hours. The information given by the accused about his beating was first in time. The case against the accused-appellant was registered merely to save themselves from the allegations made against the complainant party by the accused.

(3.) A look at the record shows that Smt. Santra was the aunt of the accused appellant and that she was having an advanced pregnancy. Moreover, the only allegation about offence of Sec. 354 Penal Code is that the appellant only touched the leg of Smt. Santra and by touching of the leg an inference of outraging the modesty of women cannot be drawn, as is observed in the case of S.P. Mallik Vs. State of Orissa and another (1982 Cr. L.J. page 19) . In this case it has been observed by their Lordships that merely by putting a hand by an accused on a belly of a female by itself could not be construed to indicate that the accused was using criminal force within the meaning of Sec. 354 Penal Code for the purpose of committing an offence or injury or annoyance. Therefore, the action of the accused could not be held to be an act of criminal with, intention and deliberate, but a pure accident. Hence, the action of the accused would not amount to an offence under Sec. 354 Penal Code when the basic ingredients of Sec. 354 Penal Code had not been proved Similar circumstances are of the present case. In these circumstances the learned trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Sec. 354 Penal Code and the appellant is, therefore, entitled for his acquittal under Sec. 354 IPC.