Komala Kumar v. State of Kerala and Asha Deepa

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1939** **Crl.MC.No.5305 OF 2016** **IN SC 300/2012 OF COURT OF SESSIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **CRIME NO.290/2010 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **KOMALA KUMAR AGED 51 YEARS, S/O KESAVA PANICKER, KARTHIKA,NEAR CHITTARAM CHURCH, THIRUPPURATHOOR DESOM,THIRUPPURAM VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.V.VINAY** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031(CRIME NO.290/10 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT)** - **2 ASHA DEEPA** **AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. DANAMMA, SOOSAN BHAVAN, NEAR CHITTARAM, THIRUPPURATHOOR DESOM,THIRUVPPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 6951 21** **R1 BY SMT.MAYA.M.N, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.02.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-2-: **“C.R.”** ## **MARY JOSEPH, J.** ------------------------------------------------- **==> picture [149 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28[th] day of February,2018 **O R D E R** The prayer in the petition on hand is to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.300/2012 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. S.C.No.300/2012 is a prosecution initiated on the basis of a final report laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST (PA) Act). The sole accused chargesheeted for the offences is the petitioner and he has approached this Court in the petition on hand with the prayer aforesaid. 3. Crime No.290/2010 of Poovar Police Station was originally registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 456, 506(ii), 323 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 IPC against several persons including the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed before Judicial First Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-3-: Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara and forwarded to Poovar Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After concluding investigation in the FIR, a final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara chargesheeting the petitioner alone for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram by C.P.No.84/2011 and that Court took the case on file as S.C.No.300/2012. 4. It is urged by Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner that evenif the entire allegations in the final report are taken as true, any of the offences for which the petitioner was chargesheeted will not be attracted and therefore, the continuation of proceedings on it's basis will be an abuse of process of court. Accordingly, it is prayed to quash the final report and S.C.No.300/2012 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Thiruvananathapuram. 5. In view of the argument tendered by the learned counsel on the inadequacy of the allegations to attract the offences, it is relevant to have a look at the allegations raised by the defacto complainant. 6. As stated earlier, the basis of registration of FIR is a private complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-4-: Court II, Neyyattinkara and forwarded to Poovar Police Station for investigation. The 2[nd] respondent herein was the defacto complainant who filed the complaint before the court. The allegations raised by the 2[nd] respondent are incorporated in paragraph 4 of the private complaint and is extracted hereinbelow: “4. 28.06.2010-ൽ കണണലററയണവന ഗണകളള ചചർന രണവറലല 7 മണറകന എലന കടളബ വവടറൽ അതറകമറചന കയറകയള എലന വസ അളകവണൻ ശമറക യള ഞണൻ പതറകരറചചപണൾ "പറയലന ചമണലള ചപണ റ" എന വറളറചന ജണതറ പറഞന ആചകണശറചലകണണന എലന ചദചഹണപദവള ഏൽപറക യള ഇടറക യള പറടറചന തളറയറടകയള നറലതവവണ എലന വസള പറടറചന അഴറകവണൻ ശമറക യള ലചയ. എലന നറലവറളറ ചകടന നണ കണർ ഓടറകടറയചപണൾ പതറകൾ ഓടറ മററഞ. പതറകലള എനറകന കണണൽ അററയണള. ഇകണരണങൾ കണണറചന ഞണൻ പവണർ ചപണലവസറനള ലനയണററൻ കര ഡറ.വവ.എസന.പറകള പരണതറ ലകണ ത. എനണൽ പതറയലട സസണധവനതറനന വഴങറ ചപണലവസന ചകസന രജറസർ ലചയറടറല. അന വവകചനരള എലന 3 ലസന വസ പതറ മറണർചകണ വൻ തകകന വറലയണധണരള രജറസർ ലചയതണയറ അററഞ.” 7. The offence under the SC/ST (PA) Act for which the petitioner was chargesheeted is one punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act as it stands originally. Lateron, it was substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f 26.1.2016. The provision as it stood originally reads: “(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;” 8. Therefore, the ingredients constituting the offence are: Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-5-: (1) assault or use of criminal force by the culprit, must have been against a woman who is a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. (2) assault or criminal force, must have been with intent to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the woman. 9. Whether the ingredients above are attracted from the allegations incorporated in paragraph 4 supra is the primary question that needs consideration. 10. It is pertinent to note from the extract supra that the allegations are originally raised against the petitioner and certain identifiable gundas. According to the defacto complainant, she was insulted by calling the caste name after trespassing into her ancestral house and attempting to measure the properties. According to her when she resisted the attempt to measure the properties she was insulted by calling her caste name, assaulted, inflicted with bodily injuries and on herself falling down, the culprits attempted to remove her dress. She cried aloud and on hearing that people around gathered there and then the culprits fled from the scene. Thereupon complaints were lodged before various authorities to set the law in motion. But, the police failed to register a case. Due to inaction of the authorities to act upon the complaints, a private complaint was filed and got the crime registered after forwarding the same to the police for Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-6-: investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 11. In the crime registered as above, investigation was completed and a final report was laid. In the statement filed by the learned Public Prosecutor it was conceded that the final report was laid chargesheeting the petitioner alone and for offences under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. 12. To attract the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (PA) Act, allegations indicative of intention to dishonour or outrage modesty of the victim must be there. Therefore, anything either to dishonour or outrage the modesty must be there to constitute the offence. After concluding the investigation, the police has laid a final report chargesheeting the petitioner for offences aforestated. The final report incorporates the allegations as follows: " 1-)0 സണ്ടാളുംബവർ ഹറിന സമദേണ്ടായതറിൽലപ സണ്ടാകറികന്ന്മണ്ടാനഹണ്ടാനറിയളും മരgണ്ടാദേണ്ടാലളുംഘനവുളും വരതറി ടറിയണ്ടാലള ചദേചഹണ്ടാപദ്രവളും ഏൽപറികണലമന്നുളും അസഭgങ്ങൾ പറയണലമന്നുളും മരണഭയളും ജനറിപറികണലമന്നുമള ഉചlശചതണ്ാളും കരതചലണ്ാളും കടറി ഈഴവ ഹറിന സമദേണ്ടായതറിൽലപട (ഇതരസമദേണ്ടായളും ) പ്രതറി തറിരപറത്തു നടതറി വന്നറിരന്ന കവീർതറി വpനണ്ടാൻസറിൽ 2002 ജനവരറി മണ്ടാസളും മതൽ എട്ടുമണ്ടാസചതണ്ടാളളും കണ്ടാലളും 1-)0 സണ്ടാകറി ചജണ്ടാലറി ചനണ്ടാകറി രപ വന്നറിരന്നകണ്ടാലയളവറിൽ മക്കുപണങ്ങൾ പണയളും എടത്തുളും തറിരറിമററി നടതറിയളും ഉണണ്ടാകറിയ സണ്ടാമതറിക നഷളും നറികത്തുന്നതറിന Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-7-: ചവണറി 1-)0 സണ്ടാകറിയലട ചപരറിലള തറിരപറളും വറിചലജന്ന് സർചവ നമർ 400/3-1 ഉൾലപട 3 ലസന്റെന്ന് വസ്തു 1-)0 സണ്ടാകറിയലട 7-)0 അനവണ്ടാദേചതണ്ാകടറി പ്രതറിയലട ബനവണ്ടായ സണ്ടാകറികന്ന് വറില 7-)0 8-)0 ആധണ്ടാരളും ലകണ്ാതറിരന്നതന്ന് സണ്ടാകറി സണ്ടാകറികന്ന് വറില ലകണ്ാക്കുന്നതറിനന്ന് ചവണറി പ്രതറിയലട ചനതതസതറിൽ വസ്തു അളന്ന 1-)0 28.06.10 സമയളും ആയതറിലന തടസളും ലചേയ സണ്ടാകറിലയ പ്രതറി രണ്ടാവറിലല 7 മണറികന്ന് തറിരപറളും വറിചലജറിൽ തറിരപറതർ ചദേശതന്ന് തറിരപറളും ചേറിററളും പളവീകന്ന് ലതകന്ന് മണ്ടാററി സറിതറി ലചേയന്ന TP VII/343-)0 നമർ സസൻ ഭവൻ വവീടറിലന്റെ ലതകന്ന് ഭണ്ടാഗതന്ന് ലകടറിയറിട്ടുള ചബല}ന്റെന്ന് ലകടറിലന്റെ വടകന്ന് പടറിഞണ്ടാലറ മലയറിൽ നറിന്നുളും 1 മവീറർ 70 cm വടകന്ന് പടറിഞണ്ടാറന്ന് മണ്ടാററിയളും ടറി സസൻ ഭവൻ വശലത മല വവീടറിലന്റെ മൻവശളും പടറിഞണ്ടാറന്ന് ലതക്കു പടറിഞണ്ടാലറ ചവരറിൽ നറിന്നുളും 6m 10 cm ലതക്കു പടറിഞണ്ടാറന്ന് മണ്ടാററിയളും ടറി വവീടറിലന്റെ മൻവശളും പടറിഞണ്ടാറന്ന് വശളും മതറിൽ ലകടറിൽ നറിന്നുളും 2m 90cm ചനലര ഉള 1-)0 കറിഴക്കു മണ്ടാററിയളും ഭണ്ടാഗത്തുവചന്ന് പ്രതറി സണ്ടാകറിലയ അസഭgങ്ങൾ പറയകയളും വക മറുകറി മതറികറിൽ ഇടറിചന്ന് ചവദേനറിപറിച്ചുളും തുടയറിൽ ചേവുടറി തറയറിൽ തളറിയറിട്ടുളും മറിണറിയണ്ടാൽ ലകണ്ടാന്നുകളയലമന്നു 1-)0 പറഞന്ന് ഭവീഷണറി ലപടതറി മരണഭയളും ഉളവണ്ടാകറിയളും സണ്ടാകറികന്ന് മണ്ടാനഹണ്ടാനറിയളും മരgണ്ടാദേണ്ടാലളുംഘനവുളും വരതറി പ്രതറി ചമൽ വകുപകൾ പ്രകണ്ടാരമള ശറികണ്ടാർഹമണ്ടായ കുറളും ലചേയറിരറിക്കുന്നു എന്നുളതന്ന് .” 13. As already stated to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (PA) Act, some assault must have been committed or criminal force must have been used by a person against whom the offence is alleged, to a woman who belongs either to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with intention to dishonour her or outrage her modesty. In Cambridge Dictionary the word 'dishonour' is defined “as a feeling of embarrassment Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-8-: and loss of people's respect or a situation in which you experience this”. Therefore, dishonouring a person means cause him to loss respect. 14. An assault or criminal force intending to outrage modesty of a woman will also attract the offences alleged. The dictionary meaning of the word 'outrage' is : “(especially of an unfair action or statement) to cause someone to feel very angry, shocked or upset.” 15. Assault or criminal force to woman in general with intent to outrage her modesty is made an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Section 354 IPC reads: ## “ **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 shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 16. The difference of the provisions is that in the offence, under Section 3(1)(xi) apart from outraging the modesty, the word 'dishonouring' ## is also there. In **Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra and** **another [AIR 2004 SC 1677]** the apex court held **:-** _**“** 12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. 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_ Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-9-: _not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as follows:_ _“Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; Shamefast; Scrupulously chaste.”_ 17. The word 'modesty' is not defined either in IPC or in SC/ST(PA) Act. It is described by the Apex Court as a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex and held, culpable intention of the accused is crux of the matter while deciding on whether an act of the nature from the culprit against a woman would constitute an offence of 'outraging the modesty'. 18. Under Section 3(1)(xi) also, culpable intention is an element essential to constitute the offence. Therefore, allegations must be there in the final report that the victim of the alleged incident was a member of SC/ST; the assailant, a member of caste other than SC/ST; and he has assaulted or used criminal force against the victim with intention to dishonour or to outrage her modesty. Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-10-: 19. The relevant part of the final report wherein the allegations against the petitioner are incorporated is extracted supra. Bearing the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST(PA) Act in mind, the allegations in the final report are read. As per the allegations, the victim was paid with abuses, hit on her shoulder with hands and stamped on her thigh causing pain, pushed down and extended with threats. There is nothing in the allegations in the final report to derive an accusation against the petitioner that he had done something with a culpable intention to dishonour the victim or to outrage her modesty. An allegation about the attempt of the petitioner to remove the clothes worn by the victim was there in the complaint filed before the court, paragraph 4 of which is already extracted hereinabove, but that allegation is missing in the final report. Even if the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint are taken for granted as the basis for incorporation of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act in the chargesheet/final report, then also even on an inference, culpable intention to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the victim, cannot be derived from those circumstances. 20. The context in which the incident was allegedly occurred is reiterated. The purpose of visit of the petitioner was to measure the Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-11-: property of the victim. The measurement was attempted by the petitioner with the help of the gundas accompanying him, but, was resisted by the victim and in the scuffle that followed, her dress was attempted to be removed. Culpable intention is unlikely to be attributed to the petitioner. The alleged act when viewed in the context can only be taken as occurred accidentally and not intentionally to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the victim. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason or basis for chargesheeting the petitioner for an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. 21. Petitioner is also chargesheeted for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC. Section 294(b) IPC is extracted hereunder; ## " **294. Obscene acts and songs** Whoever, to the annoyance of others- ## (a)xxxxxx ## (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” 22. In order to constitute the offence, the culprit must have sang, recited, or uttered any obscene songs, ballad or words to the victim in or Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-12-: ## near any public place. 23. The dictionary meaning of the word, 'obscene' is "offending against moral principles" or "offensive to good taste or morals". Therefore, for an offence under Section 294(b) IPC to be attracted against a person, he must have spoken words offending against moral principles or offensive to good taste or morals. In the final report chargesheeting the petitioner, the allegation was that he paid abuses at the victim. There is no description on the words uttered to derive that it was offending against moral principles. For the offence to be attracted, there must be allegations that words offending against moral principles must have been spoken by the assailant to the victim in or near public place. It is derived from the final report that the alleged act was occurred in the property that belongs to the victim and not in a public place. For the reasons as above, the offence under Section 294(b) is unlikely to be attracted. 24. Allegations in the final report are adequate enough to take a view _prima facie_ that the offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) are attracted. Based on the discussion made hereinabove, the Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed in part. Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-13-: In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed in part. Annexure II Final Report to the extent it chargesheets the petitioner for offences under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and S.C.No.300 of 2012 registered on the files of the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram on the basis stand quashed forthwith. The prosecution pending as SC No.300/2012 against the petitioner can be proceeded against for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC. Sd/- **MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE** Ab/NAB Crl.M.C.No.5305 of 2016 :-14-: ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.290/2010 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN 290/2010 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** P.A TO JUDGE