Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court discussed the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge Bench consisting of Justice AK Sarkar, Justice JR Mudholkar and Justice RS Bachawat. 

Facts   

• The respondent entered a room where a 7.5-month-old baby girl was sleeping and turned off the light. 
• The respondent partially undressed and committed a sexual act against the infant. 
• The respondent's actions caused physical injuries to the infant, including a ruptured hymen and a vaginal tear. 
• The respondent fled when the infant's mother entered the room and turned on the light. 
• The legal question is whether the respondent's actions constitute "outraging the modesty of a woman" under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• At the High Court level, three judges heard the case - two ruled that the offence did not qualify under Section 354, while one judge affirmed that it did. 
• The State has appealed to the High Court's majority decision. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the respondent who caused injury to private parts of a female child of seven and a half months is guilty of offence under Section 354 of IPC? 

Observations 

• The Court observed that Section 354 of IPC uses the words "intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty". 
• The Court also observed that there is no incongruity in holding that the commission of an offence against the human body does not depend on the reaction of the person against whom it is alleged to have been committed but on other things. 
• The Court further observed that Section 10 of IPC explains that “woman” denotes a female human being of any age. 
  • The expression “woman” used in Section 354 of IPC should be read in conformity with Section 10 of IPC. 
• Further, the Code does not define what would constitute “modesty”. With respect to this term the Court laid down the following: 
  • The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. 
  • Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses a modesty capable of being outraged 
  • A woman may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anesthesia, she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act; nevertheless, the offender is punishable under outraging the modesty of the woman. 
• 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. 
• In the present facts the victim was of tender years (seven and a half months) and has not yet developed a sense of shame. From her very birth a woman possesses modesty which is the attribute of her sex. 
• Thus, the Court found that in the present facts the respondent should be convicted under Section 354 of IPC.    

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court in this case discussed what would constitute modesty of a woman.  
• The Court also established that reaction of a woman is relevant but not decisive and it is the culpable intention of the accused which is the crux of the matter.