Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sunil Raghunath Mhase, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for outraging the modesty of a 3.5-year-old girl. The incident allegedly occurred on 28th March 1995, when the victim's mother (PW-1) found her daughter with the accused on the terrace in an objectionable condition. The mother raised an alarm, and two neighbours, including Sushma Kamble (PW-2), arrived. The accused allegedly apologized and left. The FIR was lodged on 30th March 1995 after consulting a doctor. The trial court framed a charge under Section 376(2)(f) read with 511 IPC but convicted under Section 354 IPC. The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found material inconsistencies between PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the child's condition and the alleged apology. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Inconsistent Evidence - Appeal against conviction for outraging modesty of a minor - Court found material inconsistencies in the testimony of the mother (PW-1) and the neighbour (PW-2) regarding the condition of the child and the apology - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 7-9).
B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Section 374(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Appellate Court's Power - The High Court, in appeal, re-appreciated the evidence and found the prosecution case unreliable - Held that the conviction cannot be sustained and is set aside (Paras 1, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 354 IPC. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Delayed FIR
- Outraging modesty
- Section 354 IPC
- Section 376 IPC
- Child witness
- Corroboration
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 53
Criminal Appeal No. 401 / 1998
Shri. K.K. Malpathak for Appellant, Smt. Sharmila Kaushik APP for State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 354 IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by Sessions Judge, Thane for outraging modesty of a minor girl
Previous Decisions
Sessions Judge, Thane convicted appellant under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 2000/- vide judgment dated 23rd February, 1998 in Sessions Case No. 519/1995
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 354 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and unreliable
State argued in support of the conviction
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the mother (PW-1) and the neighbour (PW-2) regarding the condition of the child and the alleged apology. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
Aggrieved by the conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane vide judgment dated 23rd February, 1998 in Sessions Case No. 519 / 1995, accused has preferred this appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
In the evening of 28th March, 1995, complainant could not trace whereabout of her minor 3 ½ old daughter and while searching her, she found daughter in the company of the accused, on the terrace, above 4th floor in objectionable state/ condition.
After completing the investigation, the final report was filed whereupon the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 376 (2) (f) r/w 511 of the IPC.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Thane on 23rd February 1998 in Sessions Case No. 519/1995 under Section 354 IPC. He appealed to the High Court under Section 374(2) CrPC. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 16th February 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 354, 376(2)(f), 511
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 374(2)
