SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Tri) 76

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Sri Purnendu Aich - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P No. 03 of 2021
Decided On : 19-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. D. K. Daschowdhury, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P., for the Respondent.

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 the circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Conviction of the accused under Section 354 IPC affirmed by appellate court - Accused, a landlord, outraged the modesty of the victim, a minor tenant, by entering her room and using criminal force with sexual intent; his conviction affirmed despite reduced sentence from one year to six months. (Paras 11, 26, 30, 32)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 161, 164 - Provisions pertaining to police statements and recording victim's testimony - Consistent and trustworthy witness accounts including that of the victim affirmed the charge against the accused despite his denial and claims of false accusations. (Paras 27, 30)

Facts of the case:
The victim, a 16-year-old student, was renting a room owned by the accused. The incident occurred on 08.01.2019 when the accused entered her room and attempted to sexually assault her. The victim immediately informed her father, leading to the lodging of an FIR.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found sufficient evidence to convict the accused under Section 354 IPC, affirming that the victim’s testimony was credible and corroborated by multiple witnesses. The appellate court reduced the initial sentence but affirmed the conviction.

Issues: The primary issues examined were the credibility of the victim's testimony, the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, and whether the conduct of the accused constituted an offense under Section 354 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's conduct amounted to an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman as defined in Section 354 IPC, indicating that mere knowledge of the offending act suffices for conviction, irrespective of the accused's intent.

Result: Conviction affirmed, but sentence reduced to six months.

Table of Content
1. challenge to prior conviction and sentence (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background and preliminary investigation details (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. trial proceedings and evidence presented (Para 10 , 11)
4. arguments regarding witness credibility and defense claims (Para 12 , 13)
5. elements of offense under section 354 ipc (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
6. affirmation of conviction and sentence review (Para 30 , 34)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner Purnendu Aich has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2019.

Petitioner was convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I) for a term of one year with default stipulation by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class by judgment and order dated 14.08.2019 delivered in PRC(WP) No.24 of 2019. He appealed against the order in the court of the Sessions Judge at Udaipur. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment affirmed his conviction under Section 354 IPC but reduced his sentence from rigorous imprisonment (R.I) for a term of one year to rigorous imprisonment (R.I) for a term of six months with default stipulation which is under challenge in this criminal revision.

2. Heard Mr. D. K. Das Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Factual background of the case is as under: Father of the victim (name withheld) lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of R. K. Pur Women Police Station on 09.01.2019 alleging, inter alia, that her 16 years' old victim daughter who was a Madhyamic candidate had taken a room on rent in the house of the accused for prosecuting her studies from there. On 08.01.2019 at about 9.30 pm when the victim was studying in her room, accused knocked on her door and asked her to open the door which was closed from inside. Soon after she opened the door, accused made an entry into her room and embraced her. He also caught hold of her hand and tore her chain. When she cried for help, accused left. Immediately thereafter she informed her father about the incident over his cell phone. He arrived and rescued his daughter from there. On the following day he reported the matter to police by lodging the FIR.

4. Based on his FIR, R. K. Pur Women P.S case No.2019 WP 002 under Sections 448 , 427 and 354 IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was registered and the case was taken up by woman Sub-Inspector of police Smt. Shova Rani Teli for investigation.

5. In the course of her investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the crime scene. She had drawn up a hand sketch map of the crime scene with a separate index indicating the material locations of the crime scene. Thereafter she met the victim and her father, examined them and recorded their police statements under Sections 161 Cr. P.C. She also recorded the police statements of other witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case and seized the Permanent Resident Certificate of the victim from the possession of her mother which indicated that victim was born on 06.01.2001. During investigation, victim was also produced in Court before a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Udaipur who recorded her statement under section 164(5) Cr. P.C (Exbt.3). Having found sufficient materials against the accused, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against him for having committed offence punishable under Sections 448 , 427 and 354 IPC.

6 Cognizance of offence was taken and trial commenced with the framing of charges punishable under Sections 448 and 354 IPC against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and desired to stand the trial.

7. In the course of trial prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Among them PW-1 is the scribe of the FIR. PW-2 is a teacher of the school where the v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top