Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Man’s Section 354 Conviction After Independent Witnesses Described Scuffle Between Women In Field Dispute

On 27 June 2002, the informant alleged that the appellant was ploughing disputed land and, when she objected, abused her, pulled her down by her hair and attempted to rape her. Her sister-in-law allegedly intervened. The appellant was charged under Sections 341, 323 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, but the trial court acquitted him of those charges and convicted him under Section 354 IPC, sentencing him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment.

In appeal, the appellant relied on the existing land dispute and the evidence of two independent witnesses, who described a scuffle between the women of the two parties; the State supported the conviction.

The court considered Section 354 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted.

Where the evidence permits two reasonable views, the view favourable to the accused must be preferred. The judgment cites no precedent for this principle.

The court noted the parties’ longstanding land dispute and that the appellant was ploughing the land at the time of the incident, while the informant produced no documents establishing her ownership or possession of it.

The informant’s account that the appellant pulled her down was not supported by PW-4 and PW-5, independent witnesses who testified that a scuffle occurred between the women of the two parties and that nothing happened at the appellant’s instance. The court considered the evidence capable of supporting two views and held that the trial court had not properly assessed the evidence in its overall context.

It therefore found the conviction under Section 354 IPC unsustainable.

The High Court allowed the appeal, and discharged the appellant and his sureties from their bail-bond liabilities.