1932 JTR(Cal) 200
1933 AIR(Cal) 142

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
M.C. Ghose, J., Jack, J.
Soko - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 10-08-1932

The court considered the conduct of the victim, lack of complaint, and medical evidence to determine the nature of the offense and its applicability under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.354

354, I.P.C. - Outraging modesty of a minor - The court considered whether the act of putting a finger into the private parts of a 5 and a half-year-old girl constituted an offense under Section 354, I.P.C. The court found that the girl's conduct and lack of complaint indicated that her modesty may not have been outraged, and the offense might have been under Section 323, I.P.C. The medical evidence supported the nature of the offense, and the court modified the offense to Section 323, I.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted under Section 354, I.P.C. for outraging the modesty of a 5 and a half-year-old girl by putting his finger into her private parts. The girl did not complain or show any signs of distress immediately after the incident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the conduct of the girl and the lack of complaint raised doubt about whether her modesty was actually outraged. The medical evidence supported the nature of the offense, and the court modified the offense to Section 323, I.P.C. The court also noted that the lack of authority to support the contention that the offense should be under Section 352, I.P.C.

Issues: The main issue was whether the act constituted an offense under Section 354, I.P.C., and if the girl's modesty was actually outraged.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the conduct of the girl, lack of complaint, and medical evidence to determine the nature of the offense and whether it fell under Section 354, I.P.C. The lack of authority to support a different offense was also noted.

Final Decision: The court modified the offense to Section 323, I.P.C. based on the doubt about whether the girl's modesty was actually outraged.

JUDGMENT

Jack, J. - In this case the petitioner has been convicted u/s 354, I.P.C., and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment on the ground that he outraged the modesty of a little girl of five and half years of age. This rule was granted on the ground that having regard to the age of the girl and the fact that she did not take any notice of the alleged assault and never complained to any one about the offence and she never cried or made any noise, the learned Magistrate should have held that the said girl had not developed the sense of modesty of a woman as contemplated by Section 354, I.P.C., and as such the conviction u/s 354, I.P.C., is illegal and should not be allowed to stand. The circumstances were that this little girl was playing with a boy of her own age and the accused aged about 50 put his finger into her private parts and caused a mark on them. This occurred in the afternoon and when her mother returned at about 5 o'clock and bathed the child, she complained of a burning pain in her private parts. The mother saw a red mark there and asked her how it had been caused and the child said that it was caused by the accused who was a servant of another family in the house. At the trial she said that Suku poked her there with his finger.

2. The police were then sent for and the accused was sent up on this charge. When questioned the accused said that the girl scratched herself thereby causing the mark on her private parts. The girl admitted that she and the boy were playing foot ball but said that nothing had happened. u/s 354 it must be shown that the assault was made intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely to outrage the modesty of the girl. It is urged for the petitioner that the conduct of the girl shows that in fact her modesty was not outraged. There is no suggestion that she had any hesitation in telling her mother exactly what had happened In the circumstances I think that it is therefore doubtful whether in fact the modesty of the girl was outraged, and that therefore the conviction ought not to have been u/s 354, I.P.C. As a matter of fact the charge might have been u/s 323, I.P.C. Medical evidence was taken and it showed that there was injury, namely, slight excoriation (rubbing off epithelium) with redness on the lower parts of the labia such as might be caused by a finger being turned round and round at the entrance of the vagina. In view of the nature of the offence I think that the sentence should be maintained but it should be u/s 323, I.P.C. The rule is accordingly discharged with this modification of the offence found.

M.C. Ghose, J.

3. I am of opinion that on the facts as found by the Magistrate, Section 354, I.P.C., would apply. The learned advocate has been unable to show any authority for his contention that a man who puts his finger into the private parts of a girl of five and half years of age is not guilty u/s 354 but is guilty u/s 352, I.P.C., inasmuch as she has not developed a sense of modesty. I am of opinion that such action on the part of a man as has been committed here would tend to destroy the formation of a sense of modesty in the girl and for lack of any authority I cannot agree that the case does not come u/s 354, I.P.C. As my learned brother thinks otherwise, I do not wish to differ having regard to the circumstance that the sentence is maintained.

Select Draft

x

My Favorites

    All Category

      Untitled

        Title

        Content

        Add Bookmark


        Selected folder : Select Folder

        Create New Folder
        Customise Print