[S.354 IPC] Tripura High Court Sets Aside Conviction Citing Lack Of Evidence, Says IO Didn't Collect Injury Report

The Tripura High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by a Trial Court under Section 354 of IPC against an accused on the ground that the ingredients of the offence of using 'criminal force or assault' upon the victim could not be established by the prosecution.The single-judge bench of Justice Biswajit Palit observed:“….in absence of clear and specific evidence on record, simply on the evidence on record of the victim, there is no scope here in this case to presume the appellant to be guilty and prosecution before the Learned Trial Court has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the Learned Trial Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly for which this Court feels it necessary to interfere with the judgment delivered by the Learned Trial Court.”The case of the prosecution was that an FIR was filed by the victim as informant to the O/C, Baikhora P.S. alleging that on December 03, 2020 at about 5 p.m. in the evening, she went to a medical shop near Ramraibari PHC to administer two injections on her body for pain to her legs and body and that time the appellant-accused, started to give massage on her body and on the pretext of giving massage to her body, he removed all her wearing apparels and taking the chance, physically abused her and also tried to kill her by pressing her throat.On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered under Sections 341, 354 (A), 354(B) and 307 of the IPC against the accused. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated January 25, 2024 convicted the accused under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. The accused-appellant preferred an appeal against the mentioned judgment and sentence order. The Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant submitted that from the evidence of the victim, it is clear that the victim in the course of her examination only stated that the accused touched her body but to attract the charge under Section 354 of IPC, there should be evidence of criminal force or assault. It was further argued that no independent witnesses supported the case of the victim, even the Medical Officer also did not support the case of the victim. It was submitted that in absence of cogent and corroborating evidence on record, there is no scope to sustain the charge levelled against the appellant. It was contended that Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim was not produced for examination by the prosecution and even the FIR was not duly proved by the prosecution in this case. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that from the contents of the FIR, it is clear that the present appellant committed the offence as alleged and furthermore, the appellant by the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution could not dismantle their evidence. The Court noted that from the evidence on record, it appears that to the alleged place of occurrence excepting the victim, no other persons were present.“The I.O. in course of investigation could not collect any injury report in respect of the victim nor could collect any injury report of the alleged accused. Even no Medical officer who appeared on behalf of the prosecution did whisper anything as to whether they found any injury mark on the body of the victim or to the alleged accused also. Furthermore, there is also no evidence on record that the victim went to the shop of the alleged accused-appellant for pushing of injection,” the Court notedIt was further observed by the Court that the victim stated that the accused only touched her body but she specifically did not mention anything as to how the appellant-accused committed the offence to substantiate the charge under Section 354 of IPC for which he was convicted. “In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction of sentence dated 25.01.2024 delivered by Learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No.S.T. 36 (Type-I) of 2021 is hereby set aside and the appellant-accused is hereby acquitted in benefit of doubt from the charge of this case and his surety also stands discharged from the liability of the bond,” the Court held.Case Title: Sri Bibhishan Ghosh v. The State of TripuraCase No.: Crl.A.No. 01 of 2024Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Trip) 2Click Here To Read/Download Order

[S.354 IPC] Tripura High Court Sets Aside Conviction Citing Lack Of Evidence, Says IO Didn't Collect Injury Report

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags