The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a man convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for assaulting a woman and outraging her modesty. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, ruling that the evidence sufficiently supported the conviction.
Background
The case arose from an incident dated December 1, 2009, when the informant was returning home after collecting grass from a forest area. According to the prosecution, the accused, Punnu Ram, called her, offered her ₹100 and asked her to accompany him to the jungle.
When she stopped, the accused allegedly caught hold of her hand. The woman raised an alarm, following which Basant Ram and his wife Barfi Devi reached the spot. The accused left after noticing their arrival.
The woman subsequently informed her husband and approached the police. An FIR was registered, and a case was initiated under Section 354 IPC.
The Trial Court convicted the accused on August 6, 2014, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹5,000. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, upheld the conviction and sentence on May 25, 2015.
Challenging these findings, the accused approached the High Court, arguing that no witness had directly seen him catching the woman's hand. He also claimed that the complaint resulted from a monetary dispute involving the woman's husband.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla examined the statements of the informant and other prosecution witnesses. The Court noted that although Barfi Devi did not fully support the prosecution's version, she confirmed that the woman was crying and had raised an alarm after being stopped by the accused.
The Court emphasised that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot automatically be discarded in its entirety.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dadu v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated that the portion of a hostile witness's testimony that is reliable and supported by other evidence can still be considered.
The judgment observed,
"A denied suggestion does not amount to any proof."
The Court noted that the accused had not even claimed in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that any money was payable to him for construction work at the informant's house. Therefore, the alleged monetary dispute could not be accepted as a proven defence.
The Court also relied on the fact that the woman had reported the incident to the police on the same day. The promptly registered FIR supported her account of the incident.
Referring to Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, the Court reiterated that an act capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency can amount to outraging her modesty under Section 354 IPC.
It further observed that the accused's conduct of offering money, holding the woman's hand and asking her to accompany him to the jungle supported the findings of the courts below.
The High Court also considered the scope of revisional jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah. It clarified that a revisional court is not expected to function as a second appellate court or re-examine evidence merely because another interpretation may be possible.
Finding no perversity, illegality or material error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that the sentence of one year's imprisonment was not excessive.
The Court ultimately observed,
"The present revision fails, and it is dismissed."
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts were upheld.
Case Details:
Case Title: Punnu Ram v. State of H.P.
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2015
Judge: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Decision Date: 2 November 2026
