In an unusual development, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the accused’s act of holding a woman’s hand and pulling her, saying “I love you”, outrages her modesty.
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi was hearing a plea against the conviction of a man, who was 19 at the time of the incident. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment after being held guilty under various provisions of the IPC and the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for holding the victim’s hand and pulling her, saying “I love you” when she was allegedly returning from school.
The court pointed out that such behaviour of a young boy with any girl, particularly in a rural area, was “highly objectionable”.
“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 the modesty of the victim,” the court said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.