To my mind, the act of the applicant in confining Saroj in a room, in making her lie on a bed and then sitting on her and becoming naked is clearly one amounting to use of criminal force with the intention or knowledge that the girl’s modesty will be outraged. It may also perhaps, under certain Circumstances, exclude a case where the woman is of depraved moral character.The applicant has been rightly convicted under section 354 and 342, Penal Code. Could it be said that the legislature intended that the doing of any act to or in the presence of any woman which according to the common notions of mankind is suggestive of sex, would be outside this section unless the woman herself felt that it outraged her modesty? C.63)Justice Mudholkar unhesitatingly declared that “Under s.She saw blood oozing from her private part which has besmeared her undergarment”. The cries of the girl attracted her uncle who came to the spot. It was held that the fact did not show that the accused was determined to have intercourse at all events, because as soon as he saw the uncle of the prosecutrix he ran away. He did not expose nor attempted to expose her private parts. 2536) that in fact the principles laid down by the Supreme Court are to the effect that the body of a female of a tender age may be immature at a given point of time, but development of a sense of shame, an awareness of her sexual characteristics, although get postponed to a particular age, the court has to regard that from her very birth, she possesses the modesty, which is the attribute of her sex. From the dictionary meaning of `modesty’ and the interpretation given to that word by the Supreme Court in Major Singh case it appears that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one, which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as “freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct”. Singhal of Punjab & Haryana High Court rightly pointed out in Ram Mehar vs. Had she not raised alarm and given sickle blows, he would have gratified his lust on her.
Hon'ble Justice Fazal Ali and Sabyasachi Mukharjee rightly confessed that “Sometimes the law which is meant to import justice and fair play to the citizens or people of the country is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it negatives their well established rights in law”. In this indecent posture he gives vent to his unnatural lust, and in the process ruptures the hymen and causes a tear 3/4" long inside her vagina. 391)Let us not forget that these are mere brief trailers only.
He strips himself naked below the waist and kneels over her.
The learned counsel strongly relied upon the judgment in Soko vs.
Emperor, but the Hon’ble Justice Dixit said “It is unnecessary to consider here whether a little girl of five years of age can be said to have developed a sense of modesty contemplated by Section 354, Penal Code.
Before proceeding further, let us go through the basic definition of ‘outrage’, ’women’ and modesty. Whereas "modesty" is not defined in the Indian Penal Code, however it means "womanly propriety of behavior, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in men or women) reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions"( Oxford English Dictionary,1933 Edn.)-For historical background you may see “Girdhar Gopal who was a Pujari of a mandir caught hold of young girl named Saroj (nine years old) took her to his house on the pretext of giving Prasad to her and when she was inside, he closed the door of room, made her lie on a bed, put a covering on her and then sat upon her, became naked and asked Saroj to removed all her clothes”. (1912(14) Bom L R 961) "The accused took off a girl’s clothes, threw her on the ground and then set down beside her”. “The petitioner (Bhartu) Cought holds of her, threw her down, put sand in her mouth, got on her chest, and attempted to have intercourse with her”. “The only evidence was that he removed his clothes and showed his private parts to the lady”. When all are hand-in-glove, nobody dare to bare and open the cupboards containing the skeletons of self incriminating evidences. Sarkar ,the then Chief Justice of India, in his dissenting judgment, ‘too innocently’ replied “I do not think a reasonable man would say that a female child of seven and a half months is possessed of womanly modesty.