Tripura HC Acquits Accused Under Section 354 IPC Citing Lack of Evidence
Pranav B Prem
The Tripura High Court overturned the conviction of an accused under Section 354 IPC, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove the use of criminal force or assault. Justice Biswajit Palit, presiding over the case, highlighted that the trial court had erred in its appreciation of evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Case Background
The appellant, convicted by the trial court and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, was accused of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman. The FIR alleged that the victim went to a medical shop to receive injections when the accused, on the pretext of massaging her, removed her clothing, touched her body, and attempted to rape and strangle her. The trial court framed charges under Sections 341, 354(A), 354(B), and 307 of the IPC. However, it ultimately convicted the accused solely under Section 354 IPC. The appellant sought acquittal, arguing that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charges.
Court’s Observations
Justice Palit noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case:
-
No Evidence of Criminal Force: The victim's testimony mentioned bodily touch by the accused but lacked specifics regarding criminal force or assault to substantiate charges under Section 354 IPC.
-
Absence of Corroborative Evidence: No independent witnesses supported the victim's claims, and the medical officer found no injuries on either the victim or the accused.
-
Prosecution's Failures: The investigating officer failed to collect critical evidence, such as injury reports, medical prescriptions, or photographs of the alleged crime scene. The FIR and the victim's statement were not adequately proved in court.
The court observed: “Prosecution has failed to prove the FIR or the statement of the victim as per law. Even from the statement of the victim, recorded by the Court, the ingredients of the offence of using ‘criminal force or assault’ upon the victim could not be established by the prosecution.”
Legal Precedents Cited
The appellant's counsel referred to several precedents, including:
-
Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025): Highlighting the necessity of evidence demonstrating criminal force.
-
Somasundaram Alias Somu v. State (2020): Stressing the limited evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC without corroboration.
Verdict
The High Court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. It criticized the trial court for failing to appreciate the lack of corroborative evidence and the prosecution's inability to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court acquitted the appellant, stating: “In the absence of clear and specific evidence on record, there is no scope to presume the appellant to be guilty. The prosecution before the Learned Trial Court has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”
Cause Title: Sri Bibhishan Ghosh vs. The State of Tripura
Case No: Crl.A.No.01 of 2024
Date: January-15-2025
Bench: Justice Biswajit Palit
[Read/Download order]
