‘Elbowing woman in chest doesn’t amount to molestation’:Kerala HC says act does not prove intent to outrage her modesty; overturns magistrate court ruling

The Kerala High Court acquitted a man accused of elbowing a woman in the chest, saying the act did not establish an intent to outrage her modesty. Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I in Chalakudy. The conviction had also been upheld by the Additional Sessions Court-III in Thrissur. The case was registered under Section 354 of the IPC. The magistrate court had sentenced the accused to one month in jail and a fine of ₹1,000. The appellate court subsequently upheld both the conviction and the sentence. Three sides of the case… The complainant’s side The woman was walking along Panchayat Road when the accused elbowed her on the right side of her chest. This outraged her modesty. Based on this, action was taken against the accused under Section 354 of the IPC. The accused subsequently filed a revision petition in the High Court. The accused’s side The lower courts had not properly assessed the evidence. He was being falsely implicated due to an old dispute. There was no independent evidence regarding the incident. There was also a one-day delay in filing the FIR. The government’s side The government counsel said the trial court and the appellate court had properly assessed the evidence. There was no illegality, irregularity or serious error in the judgments that warranted interference in revision proceedings. High Court says intent is a person’s state of mind The High Court said that establishing an intent to outrage a woman’s modesty is necessary to invoke Section 354 of the IPC. The court said the nature and circumstances of the incident must be examined closely to determine the accused’s intent. The court said, “Intent is a person’s state of mind. It generally cannot be proved through direct evidence. A court cannot look into a person’s mind to determine the intent behind an act.” The court said the specific allegation against the accused was that he had elbowed the woman in the chest. Based on the circumstances that emerged in the case, the act did not establish criminal intent. The court said, “The specific allegation against the accused in this case is that he elbowed the complainant in the chest. I fail to understand how such an act can be considered to reflect a criminal intent to outrage a woman’s modesty.” The court further said, “Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the criminal intent necessary to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the IPC is absent in this case.” Evidence also examined The High Court also examined the basis of the conviction. It said the trial court had relied primarily on the testimonies of the woman and her mother. The appellate court had also upheld the conviction based on their statements. The court noted that a case registered following a complaint by the accused against the woman’s husband was already pending. This raised the possibility that the woman had falsely implicated the accused. In such circumstances, her testimony required closer scrutiny. The court said independent corroboration was necessary before relying on it. The High Court also clarified that the testimony of a victim in a sexual assault case is treated on the same footing as that of an injured witness. The court said a witness’s relationship with the complainant, by itself, is not grounds to reject their testimony. However, the court found that no independent evidence had been presented to establish that the incident took place or that the woman’s mother was present at the spot when it occurred. The court said that even if the testimonies of both witnesses regarding the incident were accepted entirely, the act still did not fulfil the essential requirements of an offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The High Court subsequently set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. The order came to light on October 9, 2026. The case is cited as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 569. MH Hanil Kumar and Gopika Anil appeared for the revision petitioner. Government counsel Tania Joy represented the respondent. Clara Sherin Francis appeared before the court as amicus curiae. ​