Madras HC Acquits Man, Says ‘Hand-Pulling Alone’ Doesn’t Prove Outraging Modesty Without Intent News24 –

The Madras High Court acquitted a man convicted for three years under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by the III additional district and sessions court, Madurai, for allegedly sexually harassing a mentally challenged woman. 

The court, headed by Justice RN Manjula, noted that “If the accused had any other intention, like pulling the victim away from the centre of a road or to avert an accident, that cannot be considered an offence of outraging modesty without detailed and clear evidence about the intention.”

The decision came on an appeal filed by Murugeshan against the verdict of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, which sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000 for pulling the hand of a mentally unsound Scheduled Caste woman in May 2015.

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred when the woman was grazing cattle near the Nadukulam channel. It was alleged that Murugeshan approached her, used caste-related slurs and pulled her hand. The complaint was filed by her mother, who said she came to know about the incident from another witness PW2. In the trial, the victim was unable to answer questions due to her mental condition and hence did not testify. The case mainly depended on the statement of PW2, which the High Court later found to be contradictory. PW2 variously stated that she saw the accused attacking or that she arrived after the incident, and PW1’s complaint did not mention the accused beating her.

Another witness PW8 stated that she saw the victim crying after the incident, but PW2 did not mention her presence, thereby weakening the prosecution case. Citing the Supreme Court judgment Naresh Aneja v State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 604, Justice Manjula said that both the act of using criminal force and the clear intention to outrage the modesty of a woman are necessary to prove the conviction under Section 354. In the absence of such evidence, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the trial court’s conviction, acquitted Murugesan of all charges, ordered the cancellation of his bail bond and directed him to refund the fine paid by him.