Cumulative material inconsistencies and investigative gaps warrant the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

The appellant, an Assistant Professor, was convicted under Section 354 IPC for allegedly summoning a student to his cabin on 21 November 2011 and touching her cheeks, shoulders and buttocks.

The trial court sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000

On appeal, he challenged the conviction, relying, among other matters, on delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR, inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts, non-production of an alleged earlier complaint to college authorities, non-examination of the Principal, and failure to obtain call records

The High Court independently assessed the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix and witnesses to the events said to have followed the incident

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offence under Section 354 IPC

Whether the conviction and sentence required interference in light of the alleged inconsistencies, delays, and omissions in the prosecution evidence

Section 354 IPC penalises assault or criminal force against a woman with the requisite intention or knowledge to outrage her modesty.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the accused is not required to prove innocence, and a reasonable doubt must enure to the accused

The Court also considered the principles in Hemraj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614, and Allarakha Habib Menon v. State of Gujarat, (2024) 9 SCC 546, concerning the significance of unexplained omissions, suppression or non-production of material evidence, and non-examination of material witnesses when assessing the reliability of the prosecution case

The appellant also invoked Section 114, Illustration (g), of the Evidence Act regarding the non-examination of the Principal

The Court found that the alleged first complaint to the college authorities and the subsequent disciplinary action were not supported by contemporaneous records; the Principal, identified as a material witness, was not examined; and the prosecution evidence left unresolved inconsistencies about the complaint and the events immediately following the alleged incident

The FIR was lodged about two days after the incident, with no specific explanation recorded, and reached the Magistrate the following day

The Court further noted inconsistencies concerning Ex.P.1 and the roles of the witnesses, as well as the failure to obtain call records despite the prosecution’s claim that the appellant had summoned the prosecutrix by telephone

Although individual deficiencies might not have been decisive, their cumulative effect, considered alongside the principal witness’s evidence, left reasonable doubt about the occurrence as alleged and the appellant’s involvement

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt

Any fine paid was ordered to be refunded in accordance with law; bail bonds, if any, were cancelled, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed