The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 354 of IPC, holding that the alleged act of hitting a woman on the chest with an elbow did not establish the intention required to constitute the offence. Justice Jobin Sebastian also found that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Background
The case arose from an incident allegedly involving the accused, Rajendran, on March 26, 2002, on Urumbankunnu Panchayath Road in Kerala. The prosecution alleged that he struck a woman on her right chest with his elbow, thereby outraging her modesty.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chalakudy, convicted Rajendran on August 23, 2004, under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. The Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, upheld the conviction and sentence on October 30, 2006. Rajendran subsequently approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition.
Justice Sebastian examined whether the alleged act established the necessary intention to attract Section 354 IPC. The Court explained that intention must be assessed by considering the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances.
The Court observed:
“I am at a loss to understand how a criminal intention to outrage the modesty of a woman can be attributed to a person who allegedly committed such an act.”
The Court concluded that the essential mental element, known in law as mens rea, was missing in the circumstances of the case.
The High Court also examined the evidence of the woman and her mother, on which the lower courts had relied. During cross-examination, the woman had acknowledged that a case was pending against her husband following a complaint lodged by the accused. The Court held that this existing dispute required the evidence to be scrutinised with greater care.
It clarified that a witness’s relationship to the complainant does not automatically make the testimony unreliable. However, in this case, there was no independent evidence establishing the alleged incident or the mother’s presence when it occurred.
The Court held that the evidence of the two witnesses alone could not sustain the conviction. It further observed that even if their account of the alleged act were accepted, the necessary ingredients of Section 354 IPC were not established.
Allowing the criminal revision petition on September 30, 2026, the Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on Rajendran and acquitted him of the offence under Section 354 IPC.
The Court also ordered the cancellation of any bail bond executed by him and directed that any fine deposited be refunded in accordance with law.
Case Details
- Case Title: Rajendran v. State of Kerala
- Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 481 of 2007
- Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
- Decision Date: September 30, 2026
