Trivandrum11 minutes ago
- copy link
Kerala High Court acquitted a man for elbowing a woman in the chest. The court said that this does not prove the intention to violate the dignity of the woman.
Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the criminal review petition. He quashed the sentence of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chalakudy.
This sentence was also upheld by the Additional Sessions Court-III of Thrissur. The case was registered under section 354 of IPC.
The Magistrate Court had sentenced the accused to one month’s imprisonment and a fine of ₹1000. After this, the appellate court also upheld the conviction and sentence.
Three parties involved in the case…
victim’s side
- The woman was walking on Panchayat Road. Then the accused hit him on the right side of his chest with his elbow. This violated the dignity of the woman.
- On this basis, action was taken against the accused under section 354 of IPC. After this the accused filed a review petition in the High Court.
side of the accused
- The lower courts did not assess the evidence properly. He is being falsely implicated due to an old dispute.
- There is no independent evidence regarding the incident. There was a delay of one day in registering the FIR.
government’s side
- The government lawyer said that the trial court and the appellate court had correctly assessed the evidence.
- There is no illegality, irregularity or serious error in the decisions on the basis of which the revision should be interfered with.
High Court said- State of mind of the intended person
The High Court said that to impose section 354 of IPC, it is necessary to prove the intention to outrage the dignity of a woman. The court said that the nature and circumstances of the incident will have to be investigated closely. From this the intentions of the accused can be ascertained.
The court said, “The allegation made against the accused in the case is that he elbowed the chest of the complainant. I do not understand how this can be considered as a criminal intention to outrage the dignity of a woman.”
The court further said, “I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the criminal intent necessary to constitute the offense under section 354 of the IPC is not present in this case.”
The court also examined the evidence
The High Court also examined the basis of conviction. The Court said that the trial court had mainly relied on the testimony of the woman and her mother. The appellate court had also upheld the conviction on the basis of the statements of these two.
In such a situation, it was necessary to examine the woman’s testimony more carefully. The court said that independent verification was necessary before relying on it.
The High Court also clarified that in a sexual assault case, the testimony of the victim is considered at par with the testimony of the injured witness.
The court said that the witness being related to the complainant is not in itself a ground for rejecting his testimony. The High Court subsequently quashed the conviction and sentence. The accused was acquitted.
———————-
Read this news also…
Police’s job is to investigate crimes, not marriages: High Court cancels FIR registered in marriage of woman’s choice
Allahabad High Court has said in an important decision that marriage between two adult persons of their own free will is not a crime. The court said that the police do not have the right to interfere unnecessarily in such cases. The court, while canceling the FIR related to kidnapping registered at Suriawan police station in Bhadohi district, termed the police action as a violation of personal freedom. Read the full news…
Source link
[ad_3]
