Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Sh. P.C. Lalramnghaka - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mizoram & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.A.No.29 of 2023, I.A.(Crl.) No. 34 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2024
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 354C, Section 506, Section 222(2) Cr.P.C - The court discussed the provisions of Section 354C IPC, which penalizes the act of capturing or disseminating images of a woman in a private act without her consent. It also examined Section 506 IPC regarding criminal intimidation. The court interpreted Section 222(2) Cr.P.C, which allows for conviction under a cognate offence not charged, but found insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Section 354C, leading to the decision to acquit the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, P.C. Lalramnghaka, was convicted under Section 354C IPC for disseminating indecent images of the informant, which led to the cancellation of her marriage. The informant alleged that the appellant threatened her and sent her indecent images to her fiancé's sister, causing distress and reputational harm.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide direct evidence that the appellant disseminated the images as alleged. Key witnesses did not corroborate the claims, and the evidence presented was primarily circumstantial and insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for a conviction under Section 354C IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant committed the offence of stalking under Section 354D IPC. 2. Whether the appellant committed rape under Section 376(1) IPC. 3. Whether the appellant committed criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. 4. Whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 354C IPC despite not being charged with it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of direct evidence to establish the commission of the offence under Section 354C IPC. It highlighted that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not suffice for a conviction. The court also noted that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the absence of direct evidence led to the conclusion that the conviction was unwarranted.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Section 354C IPC was set aside, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Marli Vankung, J.
Heard B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.
2. This is an appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in SR No.96 of 2019 arising out of Criminal trial No.1330 of 2019, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 354C of IPC and sentence to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in Simple Imprisonment of another 5 (five) years.
3. Facts of the case in brief is that on 27.03.2019, an FIR was filed by the informant to the effect that she got acquainted with the present appellant, Mr. P.C. Lalramnghaka, who was holding the post of Security at Raj Bhavan from the year 2016. She decided to leave the present appellant on 13.01.2019 as she wanted to move on with her life. However, the preset appellant continued to bother her and threatened to take her life and the life of her family members. She was unable to lead a normal life on his account as he visited her at her office and troubled her. He threatened to expose her and her family and even threatened to kill her. After she decided to leave him permanently, she was forced to have sexual intercourse with him twice on 6th February, 2019 at Lalat Building as he threatened to expose her family. At present she was about to get married and the bridegroom’s have sent emissaries (palai) to her residence, however, he had sent photographs of her to her future husband’s family and as a result her marriage has been called off. She prayed that legal action be taken against the present appellant P.C. Lalramnghaka for the wrong he had done to her.
4. The Aizawl P.S. registered Aizawl P.S. Case No. 87/2019 dated 27.03.2019 under Section 354-D/376(1)/506 IPC. On investigation a prima facie case was found against the present appellant under Section 376(1)/354(D)/506 IPC and charge sheet was accordingly submitted.
5. The learned Trial Court on 06.11.2019 framed charge against the present appellant under section 376(1) IPC, 354(D) IPC and 506 part-II of IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and asked for trial.
6. During trial the learned trial court listed the following points for the determination:-
(2) whether the accused committed rape upon the victim punishable under section 376(1) IPC or not
(3) whether the accused committed criminal intimidation upon the victim punishable under section 506 part-II IPC or not.
7. During trial as many as 11 prosecution witnesses were examined and cross examined, the accused/present appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, no defence witnesses were produced. The learned trial court after considering the evidence adduce by the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused of the charge under section 376(1) IPC, 354(D) IPC and 506 Part-II IPC but held that as per section 222(2) Cr.P.C, the accused is found guilty under section 354(C) IPC and accordingly convicted under section 354(C) IPC, although he was not charge with the said section.
8. On his conviction under 354 (C) IPC, sentenced hearing was held on 19.04.2023, wherein the learned trial sentence the present appellant to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default S.I. for another 5 (five) days for committing the offence under section 354(C) IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
9. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has served his terms of sentence but is still aggrieved by his conviction under section 354C IPC since he is innocent of the said charge,
10. The learned counsel submits that on reading of section 222(2) the prosecution needs to establish that section 506 IPC is cognate with the offence under 354C IPC,
The judgment establishes that a conviction under Section 354C IPC requires direct evidence of the dissemination of indecent images, and that circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to meet the ....
The court emphasized that charges must be framed with precision, highlighting the absence of essential elements for IPC Section 354 and the need to consider dissemination under Section 354-C and IT A....
The court established that charges of sexual harassment require substantial evidence, and inconsistencies in victim statements can undermine the prosecution's case.
A conviction for criminal intimidation can be sustained solely on credible oral testimony, even if the physical evidence used for the threat is not recovered, provided the threat to publish private i....
(1) Quashment proceeding – To exercise inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not the rule but it is an exception which can be applied only if it appears to Court that miscarriage of justice w....
Conviction cannot be sustained based on uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of the victim, failing to meet evidentiary standards in sexual assault cases.
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 court established that allegations must meet specific criteria to constitute voyeurism or stalking under IPC, and lack of evidence necessitates quashing of proceedings.
Voyeurism allegations are sufficient to proceed to trial, while stalking charges are quashed due to lack of evidence; High Court's discretion to quash proceedings is limited when serious factual disp....
The unshaken testimony of the victim and corroborating witnesses, lack of motive for false implication, and consistent evidence formed the basis for establishing the guilt of the appellant.
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
