Elbow Hit To Woman’s Chest Does Not Establish Intent To Outrage Modesty: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the alleged act of hitting a woman on her chest with his elbow did not show the intention to outrage her modesty, and that, as there was a possibility of false implication, the evidence of the complainant and her mother could not alone form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration.

Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the order on 30.09.2026 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 481 of 2007, filed by Rajendran under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 30.10.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 537/2004 of the Additional Sessions Court-III (Adhoc) Fast Track Court No. I, Thrissur, which had confirmed the conviction recorded on 23.08.2004 in C.C. No. 590/2002 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy. The trial court had sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with simple imprisonment for one month in default.

According to the prosecution, on 26.03.2002 at 10 a.m., while the complainant was passing through Urumbankunnu Panchayath Road, the accused hit her with his elbow on her right chest and thereby outraged her modesty. The prosecution examined six witnesses and marked two exhibits, and the accused, who denied the circumstances when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, led no defence evidence.

Smt. Clara Sherin Francis, the amicus curiae, submitted that the complainant was at loggerheads with the accused because of a case against her husband registered on the accused's complaint, that the evidence of the complainant and her mother, PW4, was contradictory, that the mother reached the place after the relevant part of the incident was over, that there was a delay of one day in lodging the FIR, and that the ingredients of Section 354 were wanting. Smt. Tania Joy, the Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, submitting that both courts had appreciated the evidence properly and that there was no illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference.

Noting, with reference to State of Kerala v. Jathavedan Namboodiri, that a revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and interferes only for illegality, impropriety or perversity, the court held that the essential ingredient of Section 354 is the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman, which must be gathered from the nature and circumstances of the act. It said it was at a loss to understand how a criminal intention to outrage modesty could be attributed to a person who allegedly hit a woman's chest with his elbow, and held that the necessary mens rea was lacking.

On the evidence, the court noted that the complainant admitted in cross-examination the existence of a case against her husband on the accused's complaint, so that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. While recognising that the evidence of a victim in a sexual assault case is assessed on the same footing as that of an injured witness, the court held that, where a motive to falsely implicate is shown, the evidence must be scrutinised with greater care and it would be safe to look for independent corroboration. As PW4 was the complainant's mother and no independent evidence proved either the occurrence or her presence, the court held that the evidence of PW1 and PW4 alone could not form the basis for conviction, and that, even if taken at face value, it would not constitute the ingredients of Section 354.

The court accordingly allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused, cancelling his bail bond and directing that any fine deposited be refunded to him in accordance with law.

Appearances:

For the Revision Petitioner: Sri M.H. Hanil Kumar and Smt. Gopika Anil, Advocates; Smt. Clara Sherin Francis, Amicus Curiae.

For the Respondent: Smt. Tania Joy, Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Rajendran vs. State of Kerala, Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 481 of 2007 (2026:KER:77096)

[Read Order]