The Kerala High Court has underscored the need for a ‘zero-tolerance approach’ toward sexual offences, citing the alarming rise in cases of molestation and assault against women.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while upholding the conviction of two men accused of outraging a woman’s modesty, observed that such crimes are increasing “exponentially, taking a toll on the lives of women and causing immense mental and physical agony.”
However, the court reduced the sentence of the accused from six months to five months of rigorous imprisonment, considering that the offence occurred before the 2013 amendment to Section 354 IPC, which introduced stricter punishments.
The case originated from a 2011 incident where the victim, a woman traveling with her child in an autorickshaw, was assaulted by two men. One accused pressed her breast, while the other grabbed her belly, leading to a case under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage a woman’s modesty) read with Section 34 IPC (common intention).
The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of the victim (PW1) and her mother (PW4), who overheard her daughter’s cries for help over a phone call. The accused challenged the conviction before the appellate court, which upheld the verdict. They then approached the High Court, arguing that their conviction relied solely on the testimony of the victim and her mother, without independent witnesses.
Rejecting the defense’s arguments, the High Court ruled that omissions in witness testimony do not weaken a credible prosecution case. The victim’s account remained consistent under cross-examination, and the absence of independent witnesses did not undermine the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized that Indian society places great significance on a woman’s modesty and highlighted the persistent issue of sexual offences despite legislative reforms. “Sexual offences against women remain a major concern in India. Strengthening laws is necessary, but effective implementation and societal awareness are equally crucial,” it stated.
The court clarified that outraging a woman’s modesty is not limited to physical acts but extends to verbal and non-verbal conduct meant to insult her dignity. “Modesty includes physical, moral, and psychological aspects. Any intrusion into a woman’s dignity must be dealt with firmly,” it observed.
Concluding that both the trial and appellate courts correctly convicted the accused, the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence considering the pre-2013 legal framework, reducing it to five months of rigorous imprisonment.
