Holding Minor's Hand While Proposing Marriage, Not Outraging Modesty Under Section 354 IPC: Jharkhand HC [Read Judgment]

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely holding the hand of a minor girl while proposing marriage, without any sexual or improper intention, does not amount to outraging her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Rajesh Kumar was hearing a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella Kharsawan, for allegedly catching hold of a 10-year-old girl's hand and attempting to take her away for marriage.

According to the prosecution case, on 21st June 2017, the victim, then aged about 10 years, was returning home from school in Chakulia when the appellant caught her hand and allegedly began dragging her away, professing an intention to marry her. On her raising an alarm, villagers arrived and rescued her, following which her father lodged a written report at Chandil Police Station. A case was registered under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. After trial, in which six prosecution witnesses were examined, the Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine, while acquitting him of the POCSO charge.

Counsel for the appellant, appearing through the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, argued that the victim's own testimony showed only that the appellant had proposed marriage and briefly caught her hand, with no bad intention alleged, which is the sine qua non for invoking Section 354 IPC. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where it was held that the offence requires criminal force applied to a woman with the specific intent to outrage her modesty, and that mens rea cannot be inferred from vague allegations unsupported by evidence.

“It is well-settled that for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court… It cannot be said, then, that a case under Section 354 IPC is made out against the appellant.”

The Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, supported the trial court's judgment, submitting that there was sufficient material on record to sustain the conviction.

Examining the deposition of the victim, the High Court found that the appellant had merely proposed marriage to her and that no bad intention was borne out from the evidence.

“It appears from the deposition of the victim girl (P.W.5) that the boy had merely proposed her for marriage and there was no bad intention on his part. As such, the ingredient of Section 354 of the IPC is not attracted.”

Holding that the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC were not made out, the Court quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 22nd August 2023 and the order of sentence dated 28th August 2023, and allowed the appeal. The Court was informed that the appellant had already been released from custody after serving out his sentence.

Mrs. Omiya Anusha, Advocate (JHCLSC), appeared for the appellant, while Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P., appeared for the State of Jharkhand.

Case Title: Budhu Murmu @ Gudu Murmu vs. The State of Jharkhand

[Read Judgment]