A Kerala Court has held that merely holding a woman’s hand and threatening to kill her does not outrage a woman’s modesty u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the court convicted the accused u/s 506(1) of the IPC for criminal intimidation and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs 5,000.
On April 20, 2013, while the complainant was in a temple, waiting for prayer, the accused came there and held the complainant’s hand. The prosecution alleged that the accused held the complainant’s hand with the intent to outrage her modesty and to cause alarm. The prosecution further alleged that thereafter the accused threatened to kill the complainant, thus committing offences punishable u/s 354 and 506(1) of the IPC.
“PW1 stated in Ext.P1 that the accused caught hold on her right hand and threatened that he would kill her and when the people gathered there started to watch the incident, the accused was withdrawn from the scene and went down to the road. While PW1 was examined she testified that the police has taken the accused from the place of incident,” the court noted.
The court noted that it was established that the accused held the complainant’s hand, however, the question to be determined is whether the accused’s act is sufficient to meet the ingredients of the offence u/s 354 and 506(1) of the IPC.
“What the accused was done that he caught hold of the hand of PW1 and threatened her that he would kill her. It is not enough merely to show that the accused used criminal force or assaulted a woman. But it was further to be proved that he did so either with an intention to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that it was likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty,” the court said.
The court observed that while the prosecution established that the accused held the complainant’s hand, it failed to show that the accused uttered “indecent words” or “use the victim to satisfy his lust.” “To put in another way, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the accused uttered any indecent words or her had any intention to use the victim to satisfy his lust,” the court said.
“Mere assault or criminal force does not amount to an offence. The culpable intention to outrage the modesty of the victim is to be proved. Mere holding PW1’s hand and threatened her that he would kill her will not attract offence under Section 354 of IPC. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC against the accused,” the court concluded.
The court then determined whether the accused’s actions constituted the offence of criminal intimidation u/s 506(1) of the IPC. The court noted that the prosecution must prove that the accused intimidated the complainant as per the requirements u/s 503 (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC, to prove an offence u/s 506(1) of the IPC.
“The essential ingredients are (1) there should be a threat of injury to a person, reputation or property (2) to the person or reputation of any person in which the person is interested (3) threat must be with intend to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do an act which is not legally bound to do as the means to avoiding the accused of such threat (4) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as means of avoiding the causing of such threat,” the court noted the ingredients of the offence.
The court noted that the accused did threaten the complainant that he would kill her. “A mere threat without causing any alarm does not amount to a criminal intimidation. But if the threat is made with intend to cause alarm to another person threatened, the offence will automatically come into play. It is immaterial whether the recipient of threat caused alarm or not. Therefore the soul of the definition of criminal intimidation is the intention which has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and the words used by the person intimidating,” the court said.
“It is evident from the previous animosity towards PW1 that the accused had an intention to cause alarm PW1. The prosecution succeeded to prove that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to PW1. The prosecution proved the ingredients under Section 506(1) of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said.
“In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. The accused is found guilty and convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 506(1) of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/. In default, simple imprisonment for two months. If the fine amount is realized, it shall pay to PW1,” the court said.
