Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Dipak Das and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 57/2016
Decided On : 17-02-2021
Criminal Revision - Offence against Modesty - Indian Penal Code, Section 354, Section 323 - The court discussed the evidence and found the petitioners guilty of offences punishable under Section 354 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The petitioners challenged the judgment, but the court upheld the conviction and sentence based on consistent and reliable evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 354 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC for trespassing into the victim's house, outraging her modesty, and assaulting her and her neighbours. The victim's FIR led to the charge sheet against the petitioners, and the trial court found them guilty based on the prosecution evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners guilty based on consistent and reliable evidence from the victim and multiple witnesses, as well as medical evidence supporting the charges. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the revision petition and directing the petitioners to surrender within two months to suffer the sentence.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the prosecution evidence, the consistency of witness testimony, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the charges against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and trustworthy evidence of the victim and witnesses, as well as medical evidence, to uphold the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners, dismissing the revision petition and directing the petitioners to surrender within two months to suffer the sentence.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 23.06.2016 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Case No. Criminal Appeal 06(3) of 2015 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kailashahar in Case No. GR 76 of 2011 whereby petitioners were convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC and also sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and it was ordered that fine on realisation be paid to the victim.
2. The brief facts which have led to the filing of this revision petition are as under:
The victim (name withheld) lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Kumarghat police station at about 4.30 pm on 23.02.2011 alleging inter alia that on the previous day the two petitioners trespassed into her house and outraged her modesty. They caught hold of her and gagged her to prevent her from shouting and thereafter they grounded her by force and tried to undress her. Following her cry, her neighbours Ashish Nath Choudhury alias Mintu and his wife Niti Nath Choudhury appeared for her rescue. The petitioner namely, Dipak Das then took up a firewood from the place of occurrence and started striking the victim and his neighbours with it. The injuries of her neighbours being serious they were taken to RGM Hospital at Kailashahar for treatment.
3. Based on her FIR, Kumarghat PS Case No. 14/11 under Sections 447, 354 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation. The Investigating Officer met the victim and her said neighbours, recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the crime scene and prepared hand sketch map with separate index thereof and collected the injury reports of the victim and his injured neighbours and submitted charge sheet No. 22 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011 against the petitioners for having committed offence punishable under Sections 354 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura (as it was then) received the charge sheet and vide order dated 11.04.2011 took cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and transferred the case to the trial Court for trial of the case.
4. The trial Court explained to the petitioners the substance of accusation brought against them in terms of Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder). Both the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Among them PW-1 is the victim, PW-2 (name withheld) is the husband of the victim. PW-3 Ashish Nath Choudhury alias Mintu is also a neighbour who rushed to the place of occurrence following the cry of the victim and witnessed the occurrence. PW-4, Dipak Chandra Haldar is the Medical Officer who attended the injured victim (PW-1) and Manik Das (PW-2) at Fatikroy PHC where they were brought for treatment after the occurrence. PW-5, Smt. Niti Nath Choudhury, wife of PW-3 is also an eye witness who appeared at the place of occurrence to rescue the victim. PW-6, Smt. Bithi Bhattacharjee is also a neighbour of the victim who heard the cry of the victim and saw the injured victim and their neighbour Niti Nath Choudhury (PW-5) immediately after the occurrence. PW-7, Smt. Basanti Das is a neighbour of the victim. PW-8, Sanjoy Das is also a neighbour of the victim. PW-9, Bibhash Ranjan Das is the Investigating Officer who carried out the whole investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. PW-10, Dr. Gitesh Bhattacharjee is a Medical Officer who examined PW-3, injured neighbour of
AI
Consistent and reliable evidence, including witness testimony and medical evidence, supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for offences against modesty under the Indian Penal Code.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC sections for assault and outrage of modesty, reinforcing the evidentiary weight of consistent witness testimonies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and trustworthy evidence, along with circumstantial support, to establish the guilt of the accused under the relevant se....
The court affirmed that appellate courts must uphold acquittals unless clear evidence of trial court error or gross injustice is shown.
The sufficiency of the complainant's testimony in proving the prosecution case, the impact of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity.
A landlord's unwelcome entry into a tenant's room and use of criminal force to touch her body constitutes an offense under Section 354 IPC, affirming the principle that intention can be inferred from....
Conviction under IPC can rely solely on the victim's testimony if credible, but all sentences must adhere to minimum statutory requirements.
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
