The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a man convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for offering ₹100 to a woman and asking her to accompany him to the jungle while catching hold of her hand. The Court held that the accused's conduct was capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency and amounted to outraging her modesty.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “In the present case, the accused caught hold of the informant's hands, offered her ₹100/- and asked her to accompany him to the jungle. All these circumstances would shock the sense of decency of a woman and the learned Courts below had rightly held that the accused had outraged the informant's modesty.”

Background

The prosecution case was that on December 1, 2009, the informant was returning home after collecting grass from the jungle when the accused called her, offered her ₹100 and asked her to accompany him to the jungle. He allegedly caught hold of her hand, following which she raised an alarm. Basant Ram (PW3) and Barfi Devi (PW2) reached the spot, and the accused fled.

Based on the informant's complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 354 IPC. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence, following which the accused approached the High Court challenging the concurrent findings.

The High Court held that the informant's testimony was credible and sufficiently corroborated by the statements of Basant Ram and Barfi Devi, even though the latter had turned hostile. It observed that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded entirely and that its reliable portions can be relied upon.

The Court rejected the accused's plea of false implication over an alleged monetary dispute, observing that a denied suggestion during cross-examination does not constitute proof. It further held that offering ₹100 to the informant, catching hold of her hand and asking her to accompany him to the jungle amounted to outraging her modesty under Section 354 IPC.

The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity or a glaring error. Accordingly, it dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction and one-year sentence.

Date of Decision: 02.11.2026