Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
Sanjay Kumar Sinha, S/o. Brij Bhushan Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned APP appears for the State.
2. As would appear from the judgment of the trial Court no one appeared for the complainant when the matter was posted for arguments. In the present proceeding also inspite of service of notice the complainant has not put her appearance. Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 4th February 2015 of this Court a copy of the order was sent to the complainant through registered post and Mukhiya of village Sundar Pahari has personally served a copy of the order upon the complainant.
3. The petitioner was convicted under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to SI for 9 months by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by judgment dated 6th September 2011 passed in C.P. Case No.225 of 2003 corresponding to T.R. No.870 of 2011.
4. Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 12th November 2014.
5. In the present criminal revision petition, Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that mere holding of hand of a lady without any intention to outrage or know
The central legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of the essential elements required to prove the charge under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent to outrage modesty, while the conviction under Section 323 IPC was modified to a lenient sentence.
The importance of scrutinizing evidence from interested witnesses and exercising caution in reappreciating evidence during revisional jurisdiction.
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 absence of independent witnesses does not negate the reliability of a victim's testimony, and minor discrepancies do not undermine the core of the case.
The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, and instant reaction is relevant in determining intent.
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
