THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.685 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2001 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC in the order dated 09.4.2001 in S.C.No.333 of 2000 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. The brief facts of the case are as follows: “Defacto-complainant is having house sites in Chintalagaruvu, H/o of Mamuduru, PW.1. The defacto-complainant is the wife of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and 4 are their children. PWs 5 to 9 are the village elders. PW.10 is the V.A.O. Panch witness, who drafted the observation report. PW.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and PW.12 is the Inspector of Police. The accused is having house site on the southern side of the house site of PW.1. There is boundary dispute in between the accused and PW.1. PW.1’s family constructed a compound wall on the southern side of their site prior to the offence. On account of the construction of the compound wall by the family members of PW.1, disputes arose between the family members of PW.1 and the accused. While so, on 16.3.2000 at about 1 AM, A.1. and A.2 along with their men trespassed into the disputed site of PW.1 with a common intention, demolish the compound wall and badly damaged the beams in the site of PW.1. On seeing the same, PW.1 and her husband PW.2 rushed to the scene and chastised the accused. The accused grew wild against PW.1’s family members. He pushed PW.1 with hand insulting her and outraged her modesty by keeping his hand on her private parts. The accused caught hold of tuft of PW.1 and when P.W.2 tried to save PW.1, A.1 pressed the neck of PW.2 with hands. PWs 3 and 4 rescued PWs 1and 2 from the hands of the accused. After occurrence, the matter was placed before the elders. The elders did not take any action against the accused. Later PW.1 presented the report to Penumuntra Police under Ex.P.1. Basing on the above case of the prosecution, charges under Sections 354, 506(2) and 427 of IPC were framed against the appellant. Normally, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below by invoking the provisions of revision, unless otherwise there is apparent illegality committed by the court concerned. In the present case, the point for consideration as follows: Whether an assault on a woman without any intention to outrage the guilt of the said woman will attract an offence under Section 354 IPC. Sec.354 IPC reads as under: “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Thus, to attract the provisions of Section 354 IPC, assault or criminal force to a woman should have been committed for the purpose of outraging the modesty. The essence of the offence is the intention on the pat of the accused to outrage the modesty of woman. In the present case, the entire allegation against the petitioner is that he along with others entered into the premises in respect of which a civil dispute is pending between the parties, and assaulted the defacto-complainant and also committed the other offences. But, the behaviour of the appellant herein clearly discloses that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner/accused to outrage the modesty of the defacto-complainant. It is also evident from the evidence that the accused and the defacto- complainant are related to each other. Further, even in the evidence deposed by PW.1, she has not stated anything that her modesty was outraged by the act of the petitioner/accused herein. In view of the same, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court by the impugned judgments, is hereby set aside. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 22ND June, 2010. PNV