HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Ratan Bhowmik - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 43 of 2020
Decided On : 06-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. court's analysis of evidence and conviction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 21) |
| 3. arguments regarding the credibility of the victim's testimony. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. essence of section 354 ipc and its interpretation. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 5. conclusion and directive for surrender. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision arises from the judgment and order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2020 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia in case No. PRC (WP) 15 of 2018 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under section 354 IPC and sentenced him to RI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Factual background of the case is as under:
Victim lodged a written FIR with the officer in charge of Hrishyamukh police outpost at Belonia on 25.12.2017 at around 4 O'clock in the afternoon alleging that at 12.30 noon on the day when she was in the kitchen of her house, accused made an entry into her kitchen in absence of her husband and sons at home. He gave an indecent proposal to her and also offered her money. Suddenly, he embraced her and tried to disrobe her. He also touched her breasts. To free herself from the hold of the accused, victim took up a dao (a sharp cutting weapon) and caught hold of his shirt. They started scuffling with each other and came to the courtyard. Her younger son who was having a bath in the nearby tubewell came to the rescue of his mother. People who were engaged in work in the nearby paddy field also rushed to the house of the victim and detained the accused. After a while, wife of the accused and 12-15 relatives of the accused came to there and they forcibly took away the accused from there. While leaving, they threatened the victim with dire consequences.
3. The officer in charge of Hrishyamukh police outpost recorded the information in the General Diary of the police outpost vide HRM O/P GDE No.13 dated 25.12.2017 and forwarded the FIR to the officer in charge of Belonia Women police station for registration of case. Based on the FIR of the victim, Belonia Women police station case No.2017 WMN 057 under sections 448,354 and 506 IPC was registered and the case was endorsed to Women Sub Inspector of police Rubi Bala Baidya for investigation.
4. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer had visited the crime scene on the following day and seized the slippers of the accused and a piece of his shirt which got ripped during his scuffling with the victim from the courtyard of the victims' house. She had also drawn up a hand sketch map of the crime scene along with separate index indicating therein the material locations of the crime scene. Thereafter, the investigating officer examined the victim and other witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case and recorded their police statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. Victim was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate who recorded her statement under section 164(5) Cr.P.C.
5. Having concluded the investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the accused for having committed offence punishable under sections 448, 354 and 506 IPC. Names of as many as ten charge witnesses including the victim and the investigating officer were listed in the charge sheet. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class received the charge sheet and took cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 448, 354 and 506 IPC. Thereafter, trial commenced in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class with the framing of the following charges against the accused:
'Firstly:- That, you the above named accused person on 25.12.17 around 12.30 hours committed criminal trespass by entering into the house of the informant with
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.
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 court found that where evidence is insufficient and there are contradictions in victim testimony, doubts benefit the accused, leading to the quashing of conviction under non-compoundable offences....
The court established that the intention to outrage a woman's modesty is crucial in determining guilt under Section 354 IPC.
Conviction under Section 354 of IPC upheld when testimonies of victim and witnesses were consistent and reliable, distinguishing preparation from an attempt in sexual offences.
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 conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act was not upheld due to lack of evidence; however, conviction for house trespass under Section 454 IPC was a....
Conviction under IPC can rely solely on the victim's testimony if credible, but all sentences must adhere to minimum statutory requirements.
The prosecution must prove the elements of 'criminal force' or 'assault' to sustain a conviction under Section 354 IPC, which was not established in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.