Kerala High Court Flags Exponential Rise In Cases Of Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says It Includes Her 'Moral And Psychological' Modesty

“The legislature has taken steps to strengthen laws against sexual offences, with stricter deterrents for rape and sexual assault. However, offences against women continue to be a major problem in India and efforts are still needed to ensure that laws are effectively implemented.”

The Court added that Indian Society places greater emphasis on modesty of women and any act that seems to insult the modesty is a matter of serious concern. The Court said that offence of outraging the modesty of woman is not limited to physical acts of violence but also includes verbal or non – verbal conduct that is intended within the ambit of assault or criminal force.

The Court said these acts takes a toll on the women and causes them mental and physical agony. It went on to describe that modesty is not just physical, but there are moral and psychological attributes of it. The sense of bashfulness or shame a woman feels when she is subjected to an act that outrages her modesty is moral modesty. The psychological modesty is her innate sense of self- respect and dignity.

The petitioners in this case were convicted under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to women with the intent to outrage her modesty) read with Section 34 (acts done by several person in furtherance of common intention) of IPC and was sentenced to 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. The allegations were that the petitioners got into the autorickshaw in which the victim and her kid was travelling. In the auto while travelling, one of the accused pressed on her left breast and other caught her belly. While the victim was screaming, she got a call from her mother. She pressed the call button and her mother heard her cry.

The petitioner appealed the verdict and their sentence before the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court affirmed the order of the trial court The petitioners subsequently approached the High Court.

Their main argument of the petitioners was that the conviction was based mainly on the evidence given by the victim and her mother. The petitioners submitted that there were no independent witnesses. The Court however rejected this argument by saying that the testimony of an injured witness, if wholly reliable, can be accepted and the absence of an independent witness is not fatal to prosecution. The Court observed that the victim's version was consistent and was not shaken during cross- examination. The Court further said that the law does not insist on multiple witnesses.

The High Court while confirming the finding of the trial court reduced the sentence to 5 months of rigorous imprisonment.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates K. N. Radhakrishnan (Thiruvalla), Anju Susan Reji

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Renjith George (Sr. PP)

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet 1196 of 2024

Case Title: Biju Abraham and Another v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 76