‘Pulling a Woman’s Hand Not Enough to Prove Outraging Modesty Without Intent’: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently acquitted a man who had been handed down a three-year sentence for allegedly pulling the hand of a mentally challenged woman, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite criminal intent to outrage her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench of Justice R.N. Manjula allowed the appeal filed by Murugesan against a February 2018 order of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.

Murugesan had been convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000. He had originally faced charges under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in addition to Section 354 IPC. The trial court acquitted him of the SC/ST Act offences but found him guilty of outraging the modesty of the woman.

The prosecution case alleged that on May 4, 2015, the victim, an unmarried woman from a Scheduled Caste community and mentally retarded, had been grazing cattle near Nedunkulam Channel when Murugesan, belonging to the Hindu Maravar community, approached her with bad intention, abused her by her caste name, and pulled her hand. Victim's mother (PW1) lodged a complaint after learning of the alleged incident.

Nine witnesses were examined for the prosecution, including PW2, an alleged eyewitness, and PW8, another person said to have seen the victim crying after the incident. The victim herself was not examined, as the trial court recorded that she was unable to respond to questions due to her mental condition.

PW1 stated she learned of the incident only through PW2. However, PW2 testified that she did not narrate the occurrence to anyone, instead directly brought the victim to her mother. PW2’s statements also varied. At one point she claimed she saw the accused beating the victim before pulling her hand, but later admitted during cross-examination that the accused had left before she arrived. The alleged act of beating was not mentioned in PW1’s complaint.

PW8’s account that she saw the victim crying and reported the incident to the accused’s mother was not corroborated by PW2’s testimony, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Justice Manjula found that the trial court had convicted the appellant solely on the testimony of PW2 despite the contradictions in her evidence and absence of corroboration. Court noted that the alleged act, even if proved, would amount to outraging modesty only if accompanied by clear criminal intent.

"Though pulling the hands of a woman by a man would throw shock to the sense of decency of a woman, that should be coupled with the criminal intention of the accused," she held. 

Justice Manjula added, "If the accused had any other intention like pulling the victim away from the center of a road or to assert any other accident that cannot be considered as commission of an offence of outraging the modesty without a detailed and clear evidence about the intention, it can (not) be presumed automatically from any generalized or vague statements given in the evidence".

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 2 SCC 604], the High Court reiterated that for an offence under Section 354 IPC to be made out, the prosecution must establish not only that criminal force was applied but also that it was done with the intent to outrage a woman’s modesty.

Court further observed that the trial court itself had rejected the allegation of caste abuse, and in the absence of any detailed and credible evidence of intent, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Therefore, setting aside the conviction, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted Murugesan of all charges, terminated his bail bond, and directed refund of any fine paid.

“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the intention… vague or generalized statements will only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused,” Justice Manjula concluded.

Case Title: Murugesan vs The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Circle, Sholavanthan 

Bench: Justice R.N. Manjula

Order Date: July 15, 2025