PARAS NATH BHAGAT v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

No.37 of 1999 was filed which was disposed of vide judgment dated -2-

18.09.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura dismissing the same.

2. Informant, Jugeshwari Devi (P.W.-4) had furnished written report (Ext.-1) on 05.05.1996 at about 08:30 P.M. alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 06:00 P.M. her elder daughter Rita Devi while was walking at her Darwaja, accused Paras Nath Bhagat began to sing obscene song which was resisted by Rita Devi. On account thereof, Paras Nath Bhagat caught hold her ‘Aanchal’ and pulled it over which she raised alarm attracting her younger daughter Renu Devi and son Vishwajit aged about 12 years who were assaulted by Paras Nath Bhagat and Bhikhari Bhagat with lathi. She also rushed and was assaulted, during said course causing injury over her head as well as left hand. Her daughter Renu Devi had also sustained severe injury. During push and pull the broken bangle pierced in the hand of Rita Devi.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report (Exhibit-1) Madheprua P.S. Case No. 100 of 1996 was registered whereupon investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge sheet and on the basis thereof, the trial commenced and concluded in a manner which has also been concurred during appellate stage, hence this revision.

4. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court as well as judgment of -3- concurrence by the appellate court, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that defence of the petitioners relating to land dispute amongst the parties has been accepted by the Rita Devi, P.W.-1 (Para-23) as well as Jugeshwari Devi, the informant (PW-4) under para-10 and in the aforesaid background, the learned successive courts should have held that petitioners have been falsely implicated on account thereof. It has further been submitted that doctor has not been examined in this case. It has also been submitted that the learned courts below failed to scrutinize the evidence in its right perspective and on account thereof, the interest of the petitioners are found to be completely jeopardized. It has also been submitted that the learned Appellate Court should have considered that petitioner Paras Nath Bhagat happens to be a retired Army personnel and the litigation is running since 1996 and so would have taken lenient view at least giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in the background of the fact that none of the petitioners carry criminal antecedent.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the concurrent finding of the courts below submitted that because of the fact that the learned lower court had minutely scrutinized the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, consequent thereupon no interference is required at the revisional stage. It has also been submitted that offence has been -4- committed against female therefore needs no interference even in the sentence.

6. Gone through the successive lower court records. It is true that doctor who had examined the victims has not been examined and the injury report has been proved by Dr. Uma Shankar Bhagat (P.W.-6). The aforesaid deficiency had already been taken into account by the learned trial court whereunder charge under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code was not at all found to be proved. In likewise manner the trial court also held that no offence under Section 441/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The record further suggest that altogether seven PWs have been examined out of whom Rita Devi (PW-1), Vishwajit Kumar (PW-2), Renu Devi (PW-3) and Jugeshwari Devi (PW-4) are the victims and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. From their evidence it is apparent that during cross-examination also they were consistent so far manner of occurrence is concerned. The most significant part of their evidence is that they have not tried to muddle it with exaggeration, embellishment, rather they have deposed from the stage they received jerk at the hands of petitioners. Whatever deficiencies could be found is itself been patched up by the petitioners during cross-examination such as PW- 1, Para-14,15. From the evidence of PW-5, the Investigating Officer case -5- of the prosecution is found further supported with. Apart from identifying place of occurrence the Investigating Officer had categorically stated presence of petitioners adjacent to the house of prosecution party. Not only this, his evidence also suggest that the prosecution happens to be fair in conduct.

7. Outraging modesty of a women though not explained under the Indian Penal Code happens to be matter of consideration before the Apex Court, and in one case Tarakeshwar Sahu Versus State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) reported in (2006) 8 SCC 560 the Apex Court comprehensively explained by laying down following parameter. “38. Section 354 IPC reads as under: “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—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.” 39. So far as the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge that the act of the accused would result in outraging her modesty is the gravamen of the offence.

40. The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex.

41. “Modesty” is given as,“womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct” (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure -6-