IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.185 of 2002 Date of decision : March 24, 2009 Karam Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : M/s Surinder Sharma and Paresh Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for offences, punishable under Sections 354 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code, as awarded by the trial Magistrate and affirmed by the Sessions Judge, in appeal. 2. Facts, which led to the trial, conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner, may be summed up thus. On 12th March, 1998, when the prosecutrix, after attending the Civil Hospital at Bilaspur, where she was employed as a Clerk, was going to her house and on the way alighted from the bus at a place called Budhwin Chowk, the revision petitioner allegedly called her from behind by the name of Usha. Name of the prosecutrix is not Usha. She turned about and told the revision petitioner that she was not Usha. Upon that the revision petitioner started hurling abuses and then caught hold of her by her plait. When the prosecutrix put up resistance and gave a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… tooth bite to the respondent, he allegedly bit her on her face. In the meanwhile, PW-3 Onkar Singh and two other persons reached there. They overpowered the revision petitioner and rescued the prosecutrix. 3. Prosecutrix herself did not lodge any report with the police, but one of the persons, who reached the spot and rescued her, namely PW-3 Onkar Singh, informed PW-1 Anil Verma, Pradhan of the Panchayat. The Pradhan then sent a written report to the police. Police registered a case and on completion of investigation challaned the revision petitioner. 4. Prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW-2 and one of the rescuers, namely Onkar Singh as PW-3. Trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner, as aforesaid. Appeal filed by the revision petitioner in the Sessions Court stands dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the record. 6. A bare reading of the statement of the prosecutrix suggests that though the revision petitioner did assault her and in that process caught hold of her by her plait and also pushed her, but he did not do anything suggesting that he wanted to outrage her modesty, that is to say that he made no expression of sexual desire. No doubt, the prosecutrix has stated that she was bitten on her face but the revision petitioner, per her own deposition, did so only after she had given him a tooth bite. Medical certificate of the revision petitioner is also on record, …3… which shows that he had an injury on his upper lip, which probably was caused by tooth bite given by the prosecutrix. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab versus Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, has held that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The evidence of the prosecutrix does not suggest that the revision petitioner had the intention to assault her in the context of her sex. He only caught her by her plait and then pushed her. No doubt, he bit her on her face but that was only by way of reaction to the prosecutrix’ giving him tooth bite. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is not a case of assault on a woman with an intent to outraging her modesty, but only a case of simple assault and the assault having resulted in injuries, hence, a case of voluntarily causing hurt, punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence that the revision petitioner did anything amounting to obscene act or sang, recited or uttered anything obscene. Hence, his conviction, under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, is not maintainable. In view of the abovestated position, revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner for the offences, under Sections 294 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. Instead, he is convicted of the offence, punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. March 24, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J