Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he used criminal force against a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty. The Court observed that, in the backdrop of a money transaction in which the woman had borrowed money from the accused, there is a possibility that the accused caught hold of the victim's hand to question her about repayment, and the element of sexual intent was missing.

Justice Abhay S. Waghwase was hearing an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 341 and 354 IPC. The accused had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and one month, respectively.

The prosecution alleged the accused came to the complainant's house while she was washing clothes in the courtyard, abused her, followed her inside the house and caught hold of her hand before dragging her outside. The accused argued that he had been falsely implicated to avoid repayment of money borrowed by the complainant.

The Court noted that the complainant had initially denied any money transaction but subsequently admitted that the accused was demanding money borrowed by her. It also found that her claim that the accused had threatened to defame her if she failed to repay the money was an improvement, as this fact was not mentioned in her complaint.

The Court observed that intention and knowledge being courses of state of mind, it is not possible to adduce direct evidence to that regard and that inference has to be drawn from circumstances of each case. It noted that in the backdrop of money transaction, ill intention cannot be directly attributed to accused for catching hold of her hand and bringing her out of house.

“There is possibility of she being brought out of house to question her regarding repayment of money owed by her. Element of sexual intent is patently missing so as to hold that act of holding hand was with intention to outrage modesty,” the Court remarked.

The Court further held that even assuming that the accused had used force to pull the complainant out of the house, the evidence did not establish that he acted with a guilty mind or ill intention to outrage her modesty. It observed:

“… there is evidence to show that there was no clear intention or mens rea to outrage the modesty of informant as his intention was to secure his money back. Therefore, even if it is presumed that accused applied criminal force for pulling her out of her house, evidence on record does not suggest that he carried any guilty mind or ill intention while doing so.”

The Court further found the trial court's approach inconsistent, observing that it had acquitted the accused of house trespass under Section 452 IPC even though the prosecution's case was that he had entered the complainant's house and dragged her outside.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the conviction under Sections 341 and 354 IPC and acquitted the accused.

Case Title: Hussain @ Dumma Maheboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2016]

Full View
Tags: