Sexual Offences Continuing to Be A Major Problem In India; Need Zero-Tolerance Approach: Kerala HC
The High Court was considering a Revision Petition filed by two men who were booked for outraging the modesty of a woman.

The Kerala High Court confirmed the conviction of two accused persons booked for outraging the modesty of a woman and held that efforts are still needed to ensure that laws are effectively implemented in light of the fact that sexual offences against women continue to be a major problem in India.
The High Court was considering a Revision Petition filed by two men who were convicted under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen expressed its concern by saying, “In recent years, the issue of the safety and security of women has come to the forefront in India, with large number of cases of sexual offences against women being reported. The legislature has taken steps to strengthen laws against sexual offences, with stricter deterrents for rape and sexual assault. However, sexual offences against women continue to be a major problem in India and efforts are still needed to ensure that laws are effectively implemented.It is important for individuals to be aware of their rights and for the society to take a zero-tolerance approach towards sexual offences to arrest the menace of sexual assault and molestation”
Advocate K.N. Radhakrishnan(Thiruvalla) represented the Petitioners while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
It was the case of the Prosecution that, in furtherance of the common intention shared by the accused to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant while she was travelling in an Autorickshaw along with the accused persons through a public road, one of them pressed her breast while the other caught her belly and thereby, outraged her modesty. Thus, the offence under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the IPC was alleged by the prosecution against the accused.
The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial court which led to the filing of the Revision.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained, “The law is well settled that absence of independent witness by itself would not give clean chit to an accused if the testimony of an injured witness itself is wholly reliable. Law does not insist for plurality of witnesses and the legal mandate is to address on reliable evidence.” This was the reason as to why the trial court after believing the evidence of the victim supported by the evidence of her mother entered into the conviction and sentence.
It was further clarified that the most essential ingredient to attract an offence under Section 354 of IPC is assault or use of criminal force to any woman with intent to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. The Bench said, “The modesty of a woman is intimately connected with femininity including her sex. Modesty is not only limited to physical modesty but it also includes moral and psychological modesty. The moral modesty of a woman is said to be the sense of shame or bashfulness that a woman feels when faced with any act that is intended to outrage her modesty. The psychological modesty of a woman is said to be her innate sense of self-respect and dignity. Thus the modesty of a woman is sublime and any sort of intrusion or intercession is to be dealt with resolutely and soberly.”
As per the Bench, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly entered into conviction on finding that the evidence of the victim supported by her mother, fully established the prosecution case that the accused persons outraged the modesty of the victim by assault and use of criminal force. On the issue of the sentence, the Bench noticed that the occurrence is of the year 2011, prior to the amendment of Section 354 of IPC, enhancing the punishment which shall not be less than one year. Before that, the punishment provided for the offence under Section 354 IPC was imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with a fine or both. In the instant case, the trial court imposed rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and the same was found to be reasonable by the appellate court. However, in the interest of justice, the Bench modified the sentence.
Thus, allowing the Revision Petition in part, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence, the Bench ordered, “The revision petitioners/accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with 34 of IPC.”
Cause Title: Biju Abraham v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:7186)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates K.N. Radhakrishnan(Thiruvalla), Anju Susan Reji
Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George