Chhattisgarh HC rules saying ‘I love you’, holding hand, pulling woman, outrages modesty

In a rare ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an accused man’s act of holding a woman’s hand, pulling her towards him, and expressing love amounted to an outrage of her modesty under the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi was deciding an appeal filed by a man who was 19 years old at the time of the incident. The appellant had been convicted by a trial court and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment under provisions of the IPC and the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly holding the victim’s hand, pulling her, and saying “I love you” while she was returning from school.

The High Court observed that the accused did not merely hold the victim’s hand but also pulled her towards him while making the statement, and noted that such conduct by a young man towards a girl, particularly in a rural setting, would be viewed as highly objectionable. It reiterated that Section 354 of the IPC penalises assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, Indian Express reported.

While upholding the conviction under the IPC, the court reduced the sentence from three years to one year. It reasoned that the accused was young at the time of the incident and that, apart from holding the victim’s hand, pulling her, and expressing love, no further objectionable acts had been proved. Since the accused was already on bail, the court directed him to surrender before the concerned court to serve the remaining portion of his sentence.

The High Court, however, set aside the conviction under the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. It clarified that, despite this, there was no error in the trial court’s finding that the accused was guilty of outraging the woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the IPC.

In its reasoning, the court discussed the meaning of “modesty”, noting that it refers to propriety and decency in behaviour. It cited dictionary definitions describing modesty as freedom from indecency and as a sense of shame or reserve arising from an aversion to coarse or impure conduct. Relying on these definitions and earlier Supreme Court judgments, the High Court concluded that the accused’s actions were sufficient to constitute an outrage of the victim’s modesty.