‘Hand-Pulling Alone Doesn't Prove Outraging Modesty Without Intent': Madras HC Acquits Man

News18

a day ago

The bench of Justice RN Manjula emphasised that intent cannot be presumed from vague or generalised witness statements.
Pulling a woman's hand, though capable of shocking her sense of decency, will amount to outraging her modesty only if it is done with proven criminal intent, the Madras High Court recently said while acquitting a man convicted under Section 354 of the IPC.
The bench of Justice RN Manjula emphasised that intent cannot be presumed from vague or generalised witness statements. 'If the accused had any other intention, like pulling the victim away from the centre of a road or to avert an accident, that cannot be considered an offence of outraging modesty without detailed and clear evidence about the intention," the court observed.
The decision came in an appeal filed by Murugesan against his conviction by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. He had been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000 for allegedly pulling the hand of a mentally challenged woman from a Scheduled Caste community in May 2015.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred when the woman was grazing cattle near Nedunkulam Channel. It was alleged that Murugesan approached her, abused her by her caste name, and pulled her hand. The complaint was lodged by her mother (PW1) after she claimed to have learned of the incident from PW2, an eyewitness.
During trial, the victim was not examined, as she was unable to respond to the court's questions due to her mental condition. The case turned largely on PW2's evidence, which the High Court later found to be inconsistent. PW2 gave differing accounts on whether she saw the accused assault the victim or arrived after he had left, and her mention of the accused beating the victim was absent from PW1's original complaint.
Another witness, PW8, claimed she saw the victim crying after the incident, but her presence was not mentioned by PW2, further weakening the prosecution's case. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 604, Justice Manjula reiterated that conviction under Section 354 requires both the act of applying criminal force and a clear intent to outrage a woman's modesty. The absence of such proof entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the trial court's conviction, acquitted Murugesan of all charges, ordered the termination of his bail bond, and directed the refund of any fine paid.
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.