Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354 — Outraging modesty of minor girl — Appreciation of evidence — Conviction —
Criminal Revision Case filed challenging concurrent findings of conviction under Section 354 IPC by trial Court and appellate Court — Prosecution case based primarily on testimony of victim girl supported by evidence of her parents — Held, testimony of victim, if found reliable and corroborated by surrounding circumstances, is sufficient to sustain conviction even in absence of independent witnesses — Non-examination of other witnesses not fatal when evidence of victim is cogent and trustworthy.
(Paras 14–15)
Evidence — Minor contradictions / omissions — Effect —
Held, minor variations in statements of witnesses regarding manner of occurrence do not amount to material contradictions — Such variations are natural and do not discredit prosecution case when core allegation remains consistent — Explanation of appellate Court accepting such variation upheld.
(Para 15)
Evidence — Sole testimony of victim — Sufficiency —
Held, in offences relating to outraging modesty, conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim if it inspires confidence — Corroboration, though desirable, is not mandatory in every case.
(Paras 14–15)
Criminal Procedure — Delay in lodging FIR — Effect —
Held, delay in lodging FIR in offences involving sexual misconduct, particularly in rural background, is not fatal — Social stigma, family honour and hesitation are relevant factors — Delay satisfactorily explained.
(Para 17)
Revisional jurisdiction — Sections 397 & 401 CrPC — Scope — Concurrent findings —
Held, revisional Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless findings are perverse, illegal or result in miscarriage of justice — Reappreciation of evidence is limited — Where courts below have properly appreciated evidence, no interference warranted.
(Paras 8–9, 18)
Directions / Result —
Held, revision dismissed — Conviction and sentence affirmed — Petitioner directed to surrender before trial Court to serve remaining sentence, failing which coercive steps to follow.
(Paras 19)
RATIO DECIDENDI
Conviction for an offence under Section 354 IPC can be sustained on the credible testimony of the victim supported by surrounding circumstances, and in the absence of perversity or illegality, concurrent findings of the courts below cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, particularly when delay in FIR and minor discrepancies are satisfactorily explained.
