Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula has allowed an appeal, reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The court directed that the appellant be acquitted of all charges, noting that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary criminal intention to outrage the modesty of the victim. The court further ordered that the bail bond, if any, stand terminated, and the fine amount, if paid, be refunded.

The prosecution case, as recorded, was that the victim, an unmarried woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, was mentally retarded and regularly took cattle for grazing. On 04.05.2015, while grazing cattle near Nedunkulam Channel, the accused, belonging to the Hindu Maravar community and aware of the victim's caste, allegedly approached with bad intention, abused her by using caste-related words, and pulled her hands. The mother of the victim (PW1) lodged a complaint after being informed of the alleged incident.

Also Read: FIR Not Substantive Evidence Of Guilt | Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Sentence Imposed Without Notice, Restores Fine-Only Conviction

Upon receipt of the complaint, Crime No.116 of 2015 was registered. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti, registered as PRC No.39 of 2015, and subsequently committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. The case was later transferred to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.

The trial court framed charges under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 354 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty, and trial commenced. The prosecution examined nine witnesses (PW1 to PW9) and marked nine documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P9). The trial court acquitted the accused under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act but convicted him under Section 354 IPC, sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this conviction, contending that there was no evidence to prove that he abused or pulled the hands of the victim with intent to outrage her modesty. It was argued that the testimony of PW2, the alleged eyewitness, contained contradictions and that the victim was not examined due to her mental condition. The defence submitted that the trial court failed to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

The prosecution responded that the victim could not be examined as she could not speak, and the court relied on PW2's evidence. It was argued that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence in convicting the accused.

The court recorded that PW1’s knowledge of the incident came solely from PW2. "The complaint, Ex.P.1 reveals that PW1 knew the occurrence only through PW2." However, PW2 testified that she did not tell anyone about the occurrence but simply brought the victim to her mother. PW2 claimed she shouted at the accused, but this was not mentioned in the complaint.

The court noted inconsistencies in PW2’s account. "On a perusal of evidence of PW2, it is seen that the accused had beaten up the victim and then pulled her hands. In the complaint given by PW1, the act of beating is not mentioned." PW2’s cross-examination revealed contradictions as to whether she arrived before or after the accused had left.

PW1 and PW3, being the mother and brother of the victim, were not eyewitnesses. PW8 claimed to have seen the victim running and crying, but her presence was not confirmed by PW2. The court found these accounts mutually contradictory and unreliable.

Also Read: Beas River Tragedy | Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Criminal Negligence Charges Against Faculty And Dam Officials Over Death Of Students On College Trip

Citing Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court reiterated that Section 354 IPC requires proof that the accused applied criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty. The judgment stated: "Even the statement of the witnesses are vague and generalized... it is difficult to infer the knowledge of the accused that he is aware that he was trying to outrage the modesty of the woman and did it with that intention."

The court found that the prosecution had not proved any incidental conversation or other evidence showing that the accused acted with the requisite criminal intent. The trial court had already rejected the allegation of caste abuse.

The High Court held that the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. It reversed the judgment of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai dated 15.02.2018 in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2016. The court directed that "the Criminal Appeal stands Allowed and the appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him". It further ordered that the bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant stand terminated and the fine amount, if paid, be refunded.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. T. Mohan

For the Respondent: Mr. K. Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Circle, Sholavanthan Police Station, Madurai District

Case Number: Crl.A(MD)No.117 of 2018

Bench: Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula