Back
JAY SENGUPTA
Janak Ram – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jay Sengupta. J.—This is a revisional application challenging a judgment and order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, North and Middle Andaman at Mayabunder, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2023, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, North and Middle Andaman at Mayabunder in connection with GR Case No. 425 of 2015 convicting the petitioner of offences punishable under sections 354-A(l)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for terms of three months and to pay of fine of rupees five hundred each under the two provisions, the substantive sentences having to run concurrently, along with a default clause.
2. The prosecution case is that on 21.10.2015 a police team comprising of the victim police constable and other police personnel were proceeding to Lall Tikrey for maintaining law and order in the eve of Durga Puja. When they reached near Webi junction, they received an information that one person was creating nuisance in the area. The police party reached the place, apprehended the miscreant and took h
Sentence – At times, one not only has to go by maximum punishment imposable, but also by nature of offence committed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of sections 354-A(1)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code to a case involving a sexually coloured remark made by the accused to a l....
Quashment of criminal proceedings is not permissible if prima facie evidence exists to support allegations of sexual harassment and insulting modesty under relevant sections of IPC and KP Act.
In cases of alleged offenses under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of victims carry significant weight, with delays in lodging FIR ....
Charges under Section 354 IPC cannot be sustained without evidence demonstrating intent to outrage modesty; however, a charge under Section 352 IPC was upheld based on allegations of using criminal f....
The court affirmed that actions undermining a woman's modesty, such as public defamation, are serious offences under the IPC, warranting legal action regardless of procedural technicalities.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 354 IPC, concluding that the appellant's actions constituted an outrage of modesty, supported by the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the elements required to prove the charge and the essence of a woman's mode....
Allegations of stalking and obscenity must meet legal thresholds of intent and evidence; mere accusations without substantiation are insufficient for prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
