Premiya @ Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶2Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismiss-ing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding his convic-tion for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Pe-nal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of 7 years imprisonment as was imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh.

¶3We do not propose to mention narr:e of the victim. Sec-tion 228-A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of cer-tain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any

¶5The.learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of victim and Chandkauri (PW-2) who was stated to be an eye witness.

¶6In appeal, the conclusions of the learned Additional Ses-sions Judge for convicting the appellant and sentencing him were affirmed.

¶7In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel- !ant submitted that the High Court did not consider very relevant aspects viz. the delay in lodging the First Information Report, absence of injury and the admitted enmity between PW-2 and accused as affirmed by Laxman, the husband of the prosecu-trix.

¶8Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court.

¶9Certain factual aspects need to be roted. There was no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. So far as absence of the injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix is concerned, ad-mittedly she was a married lady. But on a close reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the accused outraged the modesty but had not raped her. Prosecutrix has not stated specifically about the act, but has loosely described as "fon-dling"

¶10So far as the enmity with aunt of Laxman (PW-4) the husband of the prosecutrix is concerned it is un-natural that a \r married lady belonging to the rural areas would falsely impli-cate the accused with whom she or her husband had no enmity.

¶11The offence of rape occurs in Chapter XVI of IPC. It is an offence affecting the human body. In that Chapter, there is a separate heading for 'Sexual offence', which encompasses Sections 375, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, and 376-D. 'Rape' is defined in Section 375. Sections 375 and 376 have been sub-stantially changed by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. 1983, and several new sections were introduced by the new Act, i.e. 376-A, 376-8, 376-C and 376-0. The fact that sweeping changes were introduced reflects the legislative intent to curb with iron hand, the offence of rape which affects the dignity of a woman. The offence of rape in its simplest term is 'the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force, fear or fraud', or as 'the carnal knowledge of a woman by force against her will'. 'Rape' or 'Raptus' is when a man hath carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will (Co. Litt. 123-b); or as expressed more fully,' rape is the carnal knowledge of any woman, above the age of particular years, against her will; or of a woman child, under that age, with or against her will' (Hale PC 628). The es-sential words in an indictment for rape are rapuit and carnaliter cognovit; but carnaliter cognovit, nor any other circumlocution without the word rapuit, are not sufficient in a legal sense to express rape; 1Hon.6,1a, 9 Edw. 4, 26 a (Hale PC 628). In the crime of rape, 'carnal knowledge' means the penetration to any the slightest degree of the organ alleged to have been carnally known by the male organ of generation (Stephen's "Criminal Law" 9th Ed. p.262). In 'Encyclopoedia of Crime and Justice' (Volume 4, page 1356) it is stated " ...... even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary". In Halsbury's.Stat-utes of England and Wales (Fourth Edition) Volume 12, it is stated that even the slig~test degree of penetration is sufficient to prove sexual intercourse. It is violation with violence of the private person of a woman-an-outrage by all means. By the very nature of the offence it is an obnoxious act of the highest order.

¶12In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of hav-ing such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract con-ception of modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63). A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleg-ing outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under: ·

(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;

(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on

her; and (iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the

woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. 13. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punish-able under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a per-son assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be af-fected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged of-fence is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molesta-tion and indignation is in the same position as an injured wit-ness and her testimony should receive the same weight. In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial court and the High Court have found the accused guilty. But the offence is Section 354 IPC.

¶14In the instant case we alter the conviction of the ac-cused from Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC. The accused has undergone nearly two years of sentence. The occurrence is of 1987. Custodial sentence shall be the period already under-gone. Appellant shall be released forthwith unless required in custody in connection with any other case.

¶15The appeal is allowed.

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 2008

From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1988

Ajit Kumar Pande for the Appellant.

Kumar Kartikay, Ranivijay and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent.