JUDGMENT
A. Pasayat, J.
1. Petitioners two youngsters, faced trial on the accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34, IPC. Allegedly they used Criminal Force to Sambari Ho. (PW 1) a woman, old enough to be their mother, intending to outrage her modesty. They were found guilty by learned JMFC, Karanjia who sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, conviction was maintained, but sentence was reduced to one month by learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.
2. Prosecution case, in brief is as follows :
On 8-4-1986, Doma Ho (PW 2) and his wife Sambari Ho (PW 1) were returning from Jashipur weekly market. While Doma was answering call of nature, Sambari was proceeding a little ahead. Suddenly she cried out hearing which Doma rushed to the spot where he found the petitioners embracing Sambari and trying to outrage her modesty. When he raised objection, the petitioners tried to assau him. He managed to catch hold of the petitioners. Palton Ho (PW 3) and Charan Ho (PW 5) arrived at the spot, and the petitioners were taken to Tangabille Chhak. The widows of the locality tried to settle the matter amicably, but the petitioners did not show any interest. Ultimately; information was lodged with police, investigation was undertaken, charge-sheet was submitted and the petitioners faced trial, during which they denied the allegation made against them.
3. On evaluation of the evidence of Sambari and Doma and Charan, the trial Magistrate found the petitioners guilty, and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. The result in appeal has been indicated above.
4. In support of the application, Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Courts below lost sight of the fact that FIR was lodged after considerable time. Further Courts below should not have convicted the petitioners, solely on the basis of evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Alternately, it is submitted that the sentence awarded is rather harsh considering young age of the petitioners, and absence of any similar allegation in the past.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported that the Courts below have given cogent reason for finding the petitioners guilty, and there is no scope for interference.
6. Section 354, IPC deals with assault and usa of criminal force to any woman intending to outrage her modesty. An indecent assault upon a woman is punishable under this Section. It provides for punishment for outraging modesty of a woman. Significantly, there is no statutory definition of what is outraging of a woman’s modesty. However, it is clear that there must be intention and knowledge that the woman’s modesty will be outraged. It would be outrage of modesty of a woman which act would be thought nothing but bad by another. o A person is guilty of indecent assault if he intentionally assaults the victim and intends to commit not just an assault but an indecent assault i. e. an assault which right-minded persons would think as indecent. See R. V. Court (1988) 2 All, E. R. 221 Mxi). The standard will be different in different societies. When an act is done which is suggestive of a woman’s sex and touching it. Commonly that act will fall within the ambit of Section 354. Essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is crux of the offence. The reaction of the woman is very relevant but its absence is not always decisive. In order to establish the charge under Section 354, IPC, the prosecution is to establish, (i) that a person assaulted or used criminal force to any woman, (ii) that he intended thereby to outrage her modesty, or that he knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is very easy to charge a person under Section 354, IPC, but it Is very difficult to rebut the same. Hypothectically it appears to be sound. But in a tradition-bound Indian society, it would be difficult to accept that a woman would make accusations which is likely to touch her own reputation and honour. However, where plea of false accusation is taken Court shall consider the possibility thereof and decide whether it is probable or is just a red-herring. In the instant case it is hard to believe that a middle aged woman would make false accusation against two young persons. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is cogent and credible and the Courts below have rightly actad upon it. So far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the prosecution has also given cogent reasons as to the cause for such delay. Courts below have analysed the evidence and found the delay to have been propeily explained. I do not find any infirmity in the conclusions of the Courts below for interference, while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, I find that the occurrence took place 8 years back. The petitioners were of very young age at the time of commission of offence. Their heat of passion at the time of commission of offence is likely to have cooled up in the meantime. However, it would be improper to extend the beneficial provision of the Pobation of Offenders Act to the petitioners which would encourage further commission of similar crimes. It may also be difficult to check or arrest the propensity of these crimes imperiling the modest of women. However, considering the long passage of time, it would not be proper to send back the petitioners to custody. The custodial sentence of the petitioners is restricted to the period already undergone, but each of the petitioners is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo R. I. for two weeks. The revision is disposed of.