Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri. Shyamal Nandi son of late Dhirendra Nandi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
CRL. REV. P. 93 of 2016
Decided On : 07-02-2017
For the Petitioner:Ms. P. Mog, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. RC Debnath, Addl. PP
The need for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of corroboration and consistency in witness testimonies, and the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Outraging Modesty - Criminal Appeal - Section 447, Section 354 of the IPC - Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, Raju Pandurang Mahale vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr (2004) 4 SCC 371
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for outraging the modesty of a woman based on a complaint filed by the victim. The trial court found the petitioner guilty, but the petitioner appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of corroboration led to the petitioner's acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration and consistency in witness testimonies to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Section 354 of the IPC on the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Heard Ms. P. Mog, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. RC Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C arises from the judgment and order dated 20.09.2016 delivered in Criminal Appeal no. 15 of 2015 by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.
3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia in case No. PRC 465 of 2013 on the complaint filed by one Shyamal Shil (PW-2) revealing that at about 5 pm on 03.11.2013 the petitioner suddenly appeared in their place and gagged his wife, hereinafter referred to as the victim [the name has been concealed for protecting the identity] and tried to drag her away from that place. His wife, the victim, raised alarm and on responding to such alarm the people from the neighbourhood rushed to that place and the petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, Belonia police station case no. 228 of 2013 under Section 447 and 354 of the IPC was registered and investigated. After the charge sheet was filed, the charges under Section 447 and 354 of the IPC were framed against the petitioner, when the petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced 6(six) witnesses including the victim, the informant and the Public Prosecutor. After recording the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and at that time also, he repeated his plea of innocence.
5. On appreciating the evidences led by the prosecution, the trial court (the court of the CJM, South Tripura, Belonia) has returned the finding of conviction holding that there is no reason to disbelieve PW-1 (the informant-cum-victim) who in the trial has categorically stated that the petitioner gagged her mouth with a napkin and tried to drag her away and when she raised the alarm the people from the neighbourhood rushed in and the petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence. According to the trial court the witnesses who testified the trial had to some extent, are material to ground the tale of outraging the modesty of the victim.
6. According to Mr. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there should exist some tenable foundation to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. The defence by way of cross examination could not elicit any material which can strike at the root of the credence of PW-1. The other witnesses also have lent their support to corroborate the statement of PW-1. Therefore, Mr. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stoutly contended that no interference is called for.
7. As stated earlier, the prosecution has adduced six witnesses to prove the following ingredients in order to establish the charge under Section 354 of the IPC
(i) assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intention to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty and
(ii) the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex.
8. There cannot be any doubt that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether the modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is as such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the essence of decency of a woman [Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill reported in (1995) 6 SCC 194]. On further elucidation of sine qua non of the offence related to the outraging the modesty in Raju Pandurang Mahale vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr reported in (2004) 4 SCC 371, the Apex Court has laid down the essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC as under:
(a) That the assault must be on a woman.
(b) That the accused must have used criminal force on her.
(c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her
