Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision application filed by the accused against his conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of a woman. The prosecution alleged that on 21st February 2008 at about 9:00 p.m., the accused came to the victim who was on the road in front of her house, uttered obscene words, pressed her breasts, and ran away. The victim lodged a report at the police station, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000, which was upheld by the Sessions Court on appeal. In revision, the High Court examined the evidence. The prosecution examined four witnesses, but the victim's mother (PW3) did not support the prosecution version. The spot panchnama was not proved as the panch witness (PW1) turned hostile. The victim's testimony stood alone without corroboration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which was insufficient. The court allowed the revision, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Corroboration - Conviction based solely on uncorroborated testimony of victim where mother and other witnesses did not support prosecution - Held that in the absence of corroboration and inconsistencies, conviction cannot be sustained and accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in the absence of corroboration to the evidence of the victim.
Final Decision
Revision allowed. Impugned judgments of conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted of offence under Section 354 IPC. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 354 IPC requires corroboration of victim's testimony when evidence is inconsistent
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 155
Criminal Revision Application (REVN) No. 79 of 2014
A.S. Thotange (holding for U.J. Deshpande) for applicant, S.D. Sirpurkar for respondent/State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction for outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC
Remedy Sought
Acquittal by setting aside conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Conviction by trial court and dismissal of appeal by Sessions Court
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused on 30th January 2014; Sessions Court dismissed appeal on 6th March 2014
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 354 IPC is sustainable without corroboration of victim's testimony
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant's counsel argued that there is no corroboration to the evidence of the victim, her mother did not support the version, and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
State's counsel argued that there is no reason for the victim to depose falsely, and the revision should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case under Section 354 IPC, conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of the victim when there are inconsistencies and lack of support from other witnesses. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The present revision is against the judgment of conviction, dated 30th January, 2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola in Regular Criminal Case No. 159 of 2008 by which the applicant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
PW1 not supported to the prosecution. Nothing is brought on record in his cross-examination to prove the spot panchnama. The prosecution has not examined any panch. Therefore, spot panchnama itself is not proved.
In the present case, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW2. Her mother not supported the version of PW2. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted accused on 30th January 2014; appeal dismissed by Sessions Court on 6th March 2014; revision filed in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 354
