Touch During a Scuffle, Without Mens Rea, Cannot Constitute Outraging Modesty Under Section 354 IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal

“Even if prosecution case is taken at face value, no intention to outrage modesty is proved – Absence of mens rea is fatal to charge under Section 354 IPC” - On November 6, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court  filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the acquittal of Donampudi Samuel and others, accused of assaulting a public servant and outraging the modesty of a woman under Sections 353, 354 read with Section 34 IPC. Upholding the acquittal rendered by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2005, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of intent (mens rea) – a crucial element under Section 354 IPC.

The ruling is significant in reaffirming legal standards for appellate interference in acquittals and the evidentiary burden in cases involving allegations of assault on public servants and sexual misconduct.

Home Guard Alleges Assault; Accused Allegedly Manhandled His Mother

The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on June 16, 2005, at N.G. Padu Centre, where Shaik Mastan Vali (PW.1), a Home Guard, was dispatched to control a group of allegedly drunk individuals obstructing traffic. Upon confronting the group, he was allegedly assaulted by the accused, and his undershirt (banian) was torn. During the scuffle, his mother (PW.2) arrived at the scene and was allegedly manhandled by A1, who purportedly tore her jacket and broke her bangles. A case was registered under Sections 353 and 354 read with 34 IPC, and the matter proceeded to trial.

The Sessions Court, Ongole, in its judgment dated 12.01.2006, acquitted all accused, citing lack of corroboration and evidentiary infirmities. This acquittal was challenged by the State.

“Presumption of Innocence Is Strengthened by Acquittal; Appellate Court Must Interfere Only if Trial Court’s View Is Perverse”

Reiterating the appellate standard laid down by the Supreme Court in A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, the High Court emphasized that acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence, and unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, illegal or unreasonable, the appellate court should not interfere:

“The mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence on record is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal.” [para 34, quoting Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal]

Trial Court’s Findings Affirmed: No Independent Corroboration, Hostile Witnesses, Glaring Investigative Lapses

The Court concurred with the Sessions Court’s detailed reasoning, highlighting key evidentiary deficiencies:

• PWs 3 to 9, cited as independent eyewitnesses and panch witnesses, turned hostile.

• No Test Identification Parade was conducted for Accused 3 and 4, and their identities remained unverified.

• Observation reports and seizure of torn clothes were discredited due to dubious signatures and lack of attesting witness support.

• The General Diary lacked any entry relating to the initial complaint or follow-up actions by police.

“Even the identity of accused 3 and 4 remained in dispute... The Sessions Court observed that PW.10 had failed to conduct an independent investigation to ascertain the actual facts.” [paras 15, 18–19]

The Court was also critical of the investigating officer (PW.10) for conducting a perfunctory probe, based merely on statements from hostile witnesses.

Section 354 IPC Requires Mens Rea; No Such Intent Proved

“Outraging Modesty Requires Intention; Mere Touch During Altercation Cannot Attract Section 354 IPC”

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao carefully analysed the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC, emphasizing the requirement of intention to outrage the modesty of a woman, which the prosecution failed to establish:

“Touch caused otherwise during the course of a fight between two warring sections cannot be called an act to outrage the modesty... even if the prosecution case is taken as it stands, the existence of mens rea... is amiss.” [para 27]

Relying on precedents such as Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill and State of Punjab v. Major Singh, the Court underscored that ‘modesty’ implies a woman’s sense of decency, and any act alleged to outrage it must shock the sense of decency of a woman.

“In determining whether any assault... was committed with the intent to outrage her modesty, it must be noted that during an altercation, if a woman is accidentally touched... such act cannot be construed as having the requisite intention.” [para 28]

Accordingly, the Court found that the alleged tearing of the jacket and breaking of bangles was incidental, lacked sexual intent, and occurred during a chaotic altercation, thereby failing to meet the threshold under Section 354 IPC.

Prosecution Failed to Dispel Reasonable Doubt; Sessions Court’s Acquittal Justified

Summarizing its findings, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 was uncorroborated and insufficient. The Court reiterated the cardinal principle of criminal law:

“It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof.” [para 30]

Further, in line with the Supreme Court’s observation in Mohan @ Srinivas v. State of Karnataka, the Court noted that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and unless manifest errors are shown, interference is unwarranted.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal.

Date of Decision: 06.11.2025