Holding

The offence is punishable under section 354 IPC, not section 376 IPC, and the conviction is accordingly altered.

Summary

The appellant, Shekara, was convicted by a trial court and affirmed by the Karnataka High Court for raping a girl under 16 years of age and later intimidating the victim and her mother, under sections 376, 448, 506 (with 34) IPC, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal before the Supreme Court, it was examined whether the conduct amounted to rape under s.376 IPC or outraging a woman's modesty under s.354 IPC. The Court held that the essential ingredients of rape—non-consensual carnal intercourse—were not established, whereas the act of threatening and humiliating the minor satisfied the elements of outrage of modesty under s.354. Consequently, the conviction was altered from s.376 to s.354 IPC, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the act of inducing a minor to have sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage constitutes rape under s.376 IPC.
Whether the same act, coupled with intimidation, falls within the ambit of outrage of modesty under s.354 IPC.
Whether the conviction should be upheld under s.376 or altered to s.354.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 354, s. 376, s. 448, s. 506

Subjects

rapeoutraging modestysection 354 IPCsection 376 IPCcriminal intimidationminor victimfalse promise of marriageconviction alteration

Judgment

[2009) 2 S.C.R. 744

A SHE KARA y-"'
V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Criminal Appeal No. 4 79 of 2002
FEBRUARY 18, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ)
Penal Code, 1860 : )..-

~
ss. 354 and 376 - Accused stated to have ravished a girl 1'

c -below 16 years of age - Nine months thereafter, alongwith three
others entered the house of complainant and threatened the
prosecutrix and her mother with their lives - Conviction by trial
court u/s 376, 448, 506 rlw s. 34 and sentence of 5 years RI -
Affirmed by High Court - HELD: Trial court and High Court
rightly found accused guilty, but offence committed is
D x
punishable uls 354 - Conviction altered from s. 376 to s. 354.
. ,4.

The accused-appellant was convicted by the trial
court and sentenced 5 years RI ulss 376, 448, 506134 IPC
on the charges that he ravished a girl below 16 years of
E age giving a false promise of marrying her, and nine
months thereafter alongwith three others entered the
house of the complainant and committed criminal
intimidation by threatening the prosecutrix and her
~
mother with their lives. The High Court affirmed the ~

F conviction.
Dismissing the appeal of the accused, the Court
HELD:
After a careful consideration of the evidence, the trial
G court and the High Court have found the accused guilty.
But the offence is covered u/s 354 IPC. Therefore, the ~
conviction of the accused is altered from s. 376 to s.354
IPC. [para 8-9] [ 749-A-B]

.H 744
SHEKARA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA 745

··-y State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63 - referred A
to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1967 SC 63 - referred to para 7
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal B
No.479 of 2002

i From the Judgement and Order dated 10.10.2001 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
771 of 1996. c
G.V. Chandrashekhar, N.K. Verma, P.P. Singh for the
Appellant.
Anil Kr, Mishra, A Rohan Singh, Sanjay R. Hedge, Anil Kr.
1(
Chawla, for the Respondent. D
>.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the Kar·nataka High Court upholding the E
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section

.,,,
•
~
376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ('IPC') and
sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by
learned llnd Additional Sessions Judge Dakshina Kannada,
F
~ Mangalore in SC No. 41 of 1993.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The appellant with three other accused stood tried before
the llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore in S.C. No.41 of
G
1- 1993 on the accusation that the accused No.1 about nine
~
months earlier to 16.10.1992 at House No.2/92, Vishnunagar
of Kelarkalabettu, Udupi Taluk committed.rape of PW8, daughter
of the complainant Kalyani Bai (PW1) by inducing her to have
sexual intercourse on the false promise of marrying her and
H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and yl.·
accused nos.1 to 4 on 16.10.1992 at about 10 pm entered into
the house of complainant and committed criminal intimidation
by threatening PW1 and her daughter (PW8) with dire
consequences and threatened to do away with their lives and
B thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 448,
506 read with Section 34 IPC.
...
All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
~

The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 12 and got marked
c Exs. P1 to P14. The statement of the accused under Section
313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.')
was recorded. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
3. Primary stand before the High Court was that the victim
D was more than 16 years of age and she had consented to the 'I

act. The High Court did not accept the plea and upheld the A.

conviction as recorded.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the
submissions made before the trial court and the High Court.
E
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the
judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court.
5. It is to be noted that PW1 had produced the transfer j-

certificate (Ex. P9) and has stated that it pertains to the victim
...,....
j'\<

F and her name has been entered in the certificate. Nothing has
been elicited in her cross examination to discard her evidence
that Ex.P9 pertains to the victim that is the daughter of PW 1.
PW 12 had issued the transfer certificate and also stated in his
evidence that he was working as head master of the school in
G question. He remembered to have seen her when she came for
~
applying for her transfer certificate for her children and had ...
issued the transfer certificate to her and that Ex. P9 the transfer
certificate was issued by him. It also bears the signature of the
head master. He categorically stated that Ex. P9 was issued on
H
SHEKARA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA 747
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.....,... the basis of entries made in the admission register and A
Ex.P1 O(a) as the relevant entry on the basis of which Ex.P9
was issued. As per Ex.P9 the date of birth of the prosecutrix
was 10.6.1977 and the date of incident i.e. nine months prior to
16.10.1992 clearly established that the prosecutrix was below
16 years of age. The evidence of the prosecutrix shows that B
she was aged about 8 to 9 years when she was sent to work c;:is
~ a maid servant.
..,
6. The offence of rape occurs in Chapter XVI of IPC. It is
an offence affecting the human body. In that Chapter, there is a c
separate heading for 'Sexual offence', which encompasses
Sections 375, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, and 376-0. 'Rape' is
defined in Section 375. Sections 375 and 376 have been
substantially changed by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 198~.
~
and several new sections were introduced by the new Act, i.e. D
,. 376-A, 376-8, 376-C and 376-D. The fact that sweeping
changes were introduced reflects the legislative intent to curb
with iron hand, the offence of rape which affects the dignity of a
woman. The offence of rape in its simplest term is 'the
ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force, fear or E
fraud', or as 'the carnal knowledge of a woman by force against
her will'. 'Rape' or 'Raptus' is when a man hath carnal knowledge
~ of a woman by force and against her will (Co. Litt. 123-b); or as
~
expressed more fully,' rape is the carnal knowledge of any
woman, above the age of particular years, against her will; or of F
a woman child, under that age, with or against her will' (Hale PC
628). The essential words in an indictment for rape are rapuit
and carnaliter cognovit; but carnaliter cognovit, nor any other
circumlocution without the word rapuit, are not sufficient in a
G
1'-
legal sense to express rape; 1 Hon.6, 1a, 9 Edw. 4, 26 a (Hale
~
PC 628). In the crime of rape, 'carnal knowledge' means the
penetration to the slightest degree of the organ alleged to have
been carnally known by the male organ of generation (Stephen's
1
"Criminal Law" 9 h Ed. p.262). In 'Encyclopaedia of Crime and
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
/
[2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Justice' (Volume 4, page 1356) it is stated "...... even slight ~
penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary". In
Halsbury's Statutes of England and Wales (Fourth Edition)
Volume 12, it is stated that even the slightest degree of
penetration is sufficient to prove sexual intercourse. It is violation
B with violence of the private person of a woman-an-outrage by
all means. By the very nature of the offence it is an obnoxious
act of the highest order. ,._

7. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC
mere knowledge t~at the modesty of a woman is likely to be
'"
c outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having
such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract conception
'1--
of modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of Punjab v.
Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63). A careful approach has to be
D adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage ,_
of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under .....
Section 354 IPC are as under:
(1) that the pers_on assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her;
E
and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the
woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. >-
•
8. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable
F
under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person
assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows
that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to pe affected.
Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and
cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of
G
intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various -1....,
circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is
alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and
indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and
her testimony should receive the same weight. In the instant case
H
SHEKARA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA 749
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial court and A
the High Court have found the accused guilty. But the offence is
Section 354 IPC.
9. In the instant case we alter the conviction of the accused
from Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC.
B
10. Considering the background facts and the position in
law as indicated above, the inevitable conclusion is that the
appeal is without merit deserves dismissal which we direct.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

>-.

..