‘No intent to outrage modesty’: Kerala HC acquits man convicted for elbowing woman’s chest

The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man who was convicted of outraging a woman's modesty after allegedly striking her on the chest with his elbow, holding that the act attributed to him did not establish criminal intention. The Court therefore ruled that he cannot be convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman.

Justice Jobin Sebastian, in an order dated September 30, 2026, allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Rajendran, the accused in the case, setting aside his conviction and sentence by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chalakudy, subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur.

“I have no hesitation in holding that the necessary mens rea to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the IPC is lacking in this case,” the court observed. Mens rea is the legal term for the intention to commit a crime.

The case originated from an incident alleged to have occurred at around 10 am on March 26, 2002, when the complainant was walking along the Urumbankunnu Panchayat Road. According to the prosecution, Rajendran struck her on the right side of her chest with his elbow, thereby outraging her modesty.

The trial court found him guilty under Section 354 of the IPC on August 23, 2004, and sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. He was also sentenced to another month of simple imprisonment in default of paying the fine. The appellate court dismissed his appeal on October 30, 2006, upholding both the conviction and sentence.

In his revision petition before the High Court, Rajendran challenged the findings of the two courts, arguing that the evidence had not been properly assessed and that the possibility of false implication had not been considered.

His counsel pointed out that a case had been registered against the complainant's husband based on a complaint filed by Rajendran before the alleged incident. The complainant had admitted during cross-examination that such a case existed; the court noted.

The defence argued that this prior dispute raised the possibility of false implication. The defence further alleged contradictions in the testimonies of the two witnesses and a one-day delay in lodging the first information report.

The prosecution, however, opposed the plea for acquittal, maintaining that the trial court and appellate court had properly evaluated the evidence and that there was no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

On the question of criminal intent, the High Court found the prosecution's case insufficient. It noted that Section 354 of the IPC requires an intention to outrage a woman's modesty and that such intention must be assessed by examining the nature and circumstances of the act.

“Therefore, in determining whether a person had a particular intention while committing a particular act, the nature and circumstances of the act committed have to be scrutinised carefully,” the court said.

Referring to the specific allegation that Rajendran had struck the complainant's chest with his elbow, the judge 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.”

While acknowledging that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault must be assessed on the same footing as that of an injured witness, the court said the complainant's admitted prior dispute with the accused required her testimony to be examined with greater care.

“When the complainant is alleged to have a motive to falsely implicate the accused, her evidence has to be scrutinised with greater care and circumspection. Therefore, it would be safe to look for independent corroboration before acting upon such evidence,” the order stated.

The judge clarified that a witness's relationship with the complainant is not, by itself, a reason to reject their testimony. However, in this case, no independent evidence had been produced either to establish the alleged incident or to confirm the mother's presence at the scene when it occurred.

“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence of PW1 (complainant) and PW4 (complainant's mother) alone cannot form the basis for a conviction in this case,” the court held.

The High Court also observed that even if the testimonies of the complainant and her mother were accepted as presented, the alleged act would not satisfy the ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 354 of the IPC.