354 IPC | “Hitting Woman’s Chest With Elbow Does Not Show Intent To Molest Or Outrage Her Modesty": Kerala High Court Acquits Man After 24 Years

KERALA: The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 354 IPC for outraging a woman's modesty, holding that allegedly hitting a woman's chest with an elbow did not establish the necessary criminal intention. The Court also found that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out.

Justice Jobin Sebastian, in his judgment dated September 30, 2026, allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Rajendran, setting aside his conviction and sentence in a case dating back to March 2002.

According to the prosecution, on March 26, 2002, at around 10 AM, the accused allegedly hit the complainant on the right side of her chest with his elbow while she was walking along Urumbankunnu Panchayath Road.

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy, convicted the accused on August 23, 2004, sentencing him to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction on October 30, 2006.

The accused subsequently approached the Kerala High Court, challenging the findings of both courts.

Read Also:- IPC 354 | Molestation | Outraging the Modesty of a Woman

The defence argued that the complainant had an existing dispute with the accused because he had earlier filed a criminal complaint against her husband. It also pointed to contradictions between the complainant's statement and that of her mother, who allegedly reached the scene after the incident.

The defence further questioned the one-day delay in registering the FIR and argued that the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC were absent.

The prosecution opposed the revision, maintaining that the lower courts had properly examined the evidence and that no legal error justified interference.

The High Court observed that criminal intention to outrage a woman's modesty is an essential requirement under Section 354 IPC. Such intention must be determined from the nature of the alleged act and the surrounding circumstances.

The Court found that, in the circumstances presented, the alleged elbow hit did not establish the required criminal intention.

Significantly, the complainant admitted during cross-examination that a criminal case had been registered against her husband based on the accused's complaint. The Court therefore found that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out.

Read Also:- False 354 IPC Case Against Husband’s Elder Brother | “7-Year Delay & Missing Allegation In Earlier Statements”: Karkardooma Court In Delhi Discharges Him

The High Court clarified that a victim's testimony in a sexual assault case carries significant evidentiary value. However, where circumstances indicate a possible motive for false implication, the evidence requires closer scrutiny.

In this case, the complainant's mother was not an independent witness, and no independent evidence sufficiently established the alleged incident. The Court found the available testimony inadequate to sustain the conviction.

Nearly 24 years after the alleged incident, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted Rajendran, cancelled his bail bond, and directed that any fine deposited be refunded in accordance with law.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND PROVISIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• 24 years of legal battle: A man fought for nearly 24 years before finally getting acquitted.
• Elbow hit is not automatically molestation: Kerala High Court held that the required criminal intention under Section 354 IPC was not established.
• False implication possible: Previous enmity between the parties raised serious doubts about the allegations.
• Two courts convicted him: The Trial Court and Sessions Court upheld his conviction before the High Court overturned it.
• Acquitted after 24 years: His conviction was erased, but who will compensate him for the years spent fighting the criminal case?