Lack of Demonstrable Criminal Force as the Cornerstone for Reversing Conviction Under Section 354 IPC

1. Introduction

In Sri Bibhishan Ghosh v. The State of Tripura, decided by the Tripura High Court on January 15, 2025, the Court addressed the crucial question of what constitutes sufficient evidence of “criminal force” or “assault” to warrant a conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant, Mr. Bibhishan Ghosh (referred to as “accused” at trial), challenged the Sessions Court’s decision sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for outraging the modesty of a woman. The High Court ultimately set aside that conviction, underscoring that touching alone, without proof of criminal force or assault, would not suffice to sustain a conviction under Section 354 of the IPC.

The key issue revolved around whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the application of criminal force or assault to the complainant, thereby outraging her modesty. The parties involved were:

Appellant/Accused: Sri. Bibhishan Ghosh
Respondent: The State of Tripura

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Tripura High Court reversed the conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, who had found the accused guilty under Section 354 IPC for allegedly touching the complainant’s body inappropriately while administering or preparing to administer an injection. The High Court noted that:

No charge under Section 354 IPC was formally framed at the outset by the Trial Court, even though the ultimate conviction was under that section.
No independent witnesses unequivocally confirmed use of force.
Medical evidence did not suggest any physical injuries or signs of struggle, neither on the complainant nor on the accused.
The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to collect corroborative evidence such as medical prescriptions, detailed statements from the magistrate, or properly proven first information report (FIR) contents to definitively establish “criminal force or assault.”

Given these deficits, the High Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to satisfy the legal threshold under Section 354 and allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The High Court drew from landmark Supreme Court cases to illustrate the necessary elements of Section 354 IPC—namely, outraging the modesty of a woman must involve the intentional use of criminal force or assault. Critical precedents and discussions included:

Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3): Highlighted that a mere vague or bald statement devoid of evidence of force or intention to outrage modesty is insufficient to convict under Section 354 IPC.
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194: Explained that “modesty” implies an act capable of shocking a woman’s sense of decency and must reflect intent to do so.
Major Singh case (AIR 1967 SC 63): Provided context on the meaning of “modesty” and its interpretation over time.
Somasundaram @ Somu v. State (2020) 7 SCC 722: Clarified that statements taken under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence but can only be used for corroboration or contradiction when the witness testifies in court.

These citations guided the High Court in underscoring that criminal intent or force is fundamental to constituting an offence under Section 354 IPC and cannot be presumed solely from a complainant’s discomfort.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

In reaching its decision, the High Court stressed:

Requirement of “Criminal Force/Assault”: Section 354 IPC clearly demands proof of criminal force or assault. A simple bodily touch without further evidence of intention or force does not suffice.
Failure of Prosecution to Establish Intent: The Court found the prosecution evidence vague with respect to the alleged assault. The Court observed that merely stating the accused “touched” the victim’s body was insufficient, especially in a context where injections or medical attention could involve some physical contact.
Absence of Corroborating Evidence: Neither medical reports nor eyewitness testimony confirmed any force, struggle, or injury. The Investigating Officer had not seized medical prescriptions or validated the nature of the injections administered.
Limits of 164 Cr.P.C. Statements: Because the Magistrate who recorded the complainant’s statement was not examined, and the prosecution did not formally prove the contents of the FIR, the Court considered this evidentiary gap insurmountable.

All these factors combined to cast doubt on whether the victim’s modesty was indeed outraged through the application of criminal force, leading the Court to acquit the accused.

3.3 Impact

This judgment provides a clear directive for future cases under Section 354 IPC:

Prosecution must conclusively demonstrate an element of force or assault, not just uncomfortable or incidental touching.
Investigative rigor is key—collecting prescriptions, verifying medical necessity for bodily contact, and producing statements that comply with legal standards is critical.
Courts will not consider statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence unless properly corroborated in testimony and scrutiny of the appropriate Magistrate.
Defense counsel can rely on this ruling to question whether “modesty” was indeed outraged if the prosecution fails to prove use of criminal force.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts featured in the judgment benefit from a simpler explanation:

Criminal Force: Under Section 350 IPC, “criminal force” means intentionally using force against a person without consent, intending to commit an offence or cause injury, fear, or annoyance. Simply touching or handling someone in an incidental or consensual manner does not amount to criminal force.
Modesty: As interpreted by various courts, a woman’s modesty involves her sense of decency and dignity. Outraging modesty requires a deliberate act that shocks her sense of decency, not merely an unclear or accidental contact.
Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements: Statements made to a Magistrate can be used only for corroboration or contradiction of a witness during trial. They are not stand-alone evidence unless the proper judicial procedures are followed, and the Magistrate is available for examination if required.

5. Conclusion

The judgment in Sri Bibhishan Ghosh v. The State of Tripura underscores that for a conviction under Section 354 IPC, mere allegations of unwanted touching are insufficient without compelling evidence of criminal force, assault, or intent to outrage modesty. The High Court’s decision stresses investigative thoroughness and procedural compliance—particularly in proving the FIR, examining the Magistrate who recorded statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and collecting meaningful evidence of force or threat. Consequently, the accused’s conviction was set aside for want of these essential elements, reaffirming the principle that courts must vigilantly protect an individual’s liberty unless guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.