Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan dismissed bail application of accused in Sunil N S v. State of Kerala popularly known as the “assault against the cine actress” case.

What is the Background of Case?

• The petitioner, Sri Sunil N.S., is the first accused in a criminal case. The case is popularly known as the “assault against the cine actress” case.
• The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, abducted and sexually assaulted a victim (a movie star) in a moving car, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy involving another movie star (the 8th accused).
• The petitioner has been in custody since 23rd February 2017, and the trial is ongoing before the Principal Sessions Court in Ernakulam, under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
• The petitioner filed numerous bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court, and two appeals before the Supreme Court, all of which have been dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The High Court observed that the petitioner has failed to establish any change in circumstances to justify filing successive bail applications after the previous ones were dismissed.
• The High Court dismissed the present (10th) bail application as frivolous, as it was filed just three days after the dismissal of the previous bail application, without any change in circumstances.
• The High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for filing repeated and frivolous bail applications, payable to the Kerala Legal Services Authority within one month.
• The High Court held that it has ample power under Section 482 of the CrPC to impose costs in such cases to prevent abuse of the court's process and secure the ends of justice.
• The High Court observed that the petitioner's conduct in filing repeated bail applications, engaging different lawyers, and approaching the Supreme Court, suggests that he is financially capable or has support from others, despite being in custody for seven years.

What is Law Related to Outraging Modesty of Women?

• Introduction:
  • Section 354 of the IPC and Section 74 of BNS deals with the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman through assault or criminal force.
  • The objective is to safeguard women's dignity and protect public morality and decent behavior.
• Definition of Modesty:
  • 'Modesty' is not explicitly defined in the IPC but refers to womanly propriety, decency, and reserve in behavior, speech, and conduct.
  • A woman's modesty is intrinsically linked to her sex and femininity, regardless of age.
• Outraging Modesty:
  • Outraging modesty involves acts that are offensive, indecent, or degrading to a woman's sense of decency and morality.
  • It includes acts like inappropriate touching, forcible disrobing, indecent gestures or remarks with the intent to insult modesty.
• Essential Ingredients:
  • Assault or use of criminal force against a woman.
  • Intention or knowledge that such acts are likely to outrage her modesty.
• Intention v. Reaction:
  • The offence hinges on the accused's culpable intention, not the victim's reaction.
  • A woman's lack of perceived outrage is irrelevant if the accused had the requisite intention.
• Punishment:
  • Punishable with imprisonment between 1-5 years and fine.
  • A cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence triable by any Magistrate.

What are Case Laws Related to Outraging Modesty of Women?

• State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1967):
  • The ultimate test is whether the act is perceived as capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency.
  • A woman possesses modesty by virtue of her sex from birth.
  • The victim's age is irrelevant in determining outrage of modesty.
• Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (2006):
  • Modesty is an attribute associated with women as a class.
  • The culpable intention of the accused is crucial, not the victim's reaction.
  • Even if the victim is unable to perceive the outrage (sleeping, minor, etc.), the offence is punishable.
• State of Kerala v. Hamsa (1988):
  • Outraging modesty depends on the customs and habits of the society. Even gestures with such intention can attract Section 354 of IPC.
• Ram Mehar v. State of Haryana (1998):
  • Catching hold of a woman, taking her to an isolated place, and attempting to undress her amounts to outraging modesty.