Pulling Woman's Hands Though Shocks Decency, It Doesn't Outrage Her Modesty Unless Coupled With 'Criminal Intent': Madras High Court

Justice RN Manjula added that without any clear evidence about the intention of the man, vague or generalised statements would only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused with respect to his criminal intention.

“Though pulling the hands of a woman by a man would throw shock to the sense of decency of a woman, that should be coupled with the criminal intention of the accused. If the accused had any other intention like pulling the victim away from the center of a road or to assert any other accident that cannot be considered as commission of an offence of outraging the modesty without a detailed and clear evidence about the intention, it can be presumed automatically from any generalized or vague statements given in the evidence. Such vague or generalized statements will only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused as regards his criminal intention to commit the offence,” the court said.

The court thus set aside the conviction of a man, sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

The case against the man was that he had pulled the hands of the victim girl, who was mentally retarded, when she had taken her cattle for grazing. The complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim, who came to known about the incident.

The man submitted that nothing was available on records to show that the he had abused the victim or pulled her hand with a bad intention to outrage her modesty. It was also submitted that the victim was not examined as a witness. Pointing to the contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witness, the man argued that the trial judge had failed to give the benefit of doubt to him. It was also argued that even if it was assumed that he had pulled the hands of the victim, it would not amount to outraging her modestly unless he had an intention to outrage her modesty.

The Government Advocate argued that the victim was not examined since she was a mentally retarded person who could not speak before the court. It was submitted that since the evidence of the eye-witness was reliable, the trial court convicted the man, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence.

The High Court noted that the mother of the victim came to know about the incident through the eyewitness who informed her that the accused had pulled the hands of the victim and the victim screamed. The eye-witness had informed the mother that upon hearing the victim's noise, she went to the spot and on seeing her, the accused ran away.

The court noted that there were contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witness and conviction of the accused based on the same, without corroboration, was not correct. The court also noted that in the absence of any evidence as to the incidental conversation, there was nothing to show that the accused had pulled the hands of the victim with the only intention of outraging her modesty.

Thus, noting that the accused was entitled to get benefit of doubt, the court allowed his appeal and acquitted him from all charges.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. T. Mohan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. K. Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272

Case No: Crl.A(MD)No.117 of 2018