When Prosecution Evidence Specifically Alleging Rape Fails, Conviction Cannot Be Automatically Altered To Section 354 IPC: Tripura HC

The Court acquitted the Appellant who was convicted under Sections 341, 354, and 506 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained as the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

A Single Bench of Justice S Datta Purkayastha held, “This Court is, therefore, in agreement with the submission of Mr. Datta, learned counsel that when the prosecution evidence is led specifically regarding commission of rape upon the victim and it fails, the conviction cannot automatically be converted or altered to Section 354 IPC unless there are satisfactory evidences available to attract such provision.”

Advocate Ratan Datta represented the Appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Rajib Saha appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Appeal was filed against the Judgment of the Trial Court which had convicted and sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment under Sections 341, 354 and 506 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court examined the testimony of the victim, her parents and other witnesses. The Court found inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the alleged threats and the sequence of events. It noted that while the FIR alleged rape, the Trial Court had acquitted the Appellant of charges under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, instead convicting him under Sections 354 of the IPC and 8 of the POCSO Act.

The Court noted that the Trial Court while convicting the Appellant under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act referred to the evidence of the Medical Officer in respect of the history given by the victim and held him guilty under said provisions.

However, the Bench clarified that the “Trial Court failed to consider the position of the law that the medical evidence is a opinion evidence advisory in nature and it cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence with reference to the commission of alleged offence. The medical evidence is used for the purpose of corroboration or discorroboration with reference to the substantive evidence adduced in a criminal trial by the prosecution in respect of the commission of crime.”

“Therefore, learned Trial Court committed err in convicting the present appellant under Section 354 IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act for the reasons as discussed above,” it held.

The Court took note of the submission advanced by the Prosecution that even if the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC or Section 8 of the POCSO Act failed, still conviction under Section 341 of the IPC was required to be maintained.

However, the Court did not agree with the said contention and held that “as when the charges or conviction for the prime offence has failed and the conviction cannot be maintained in respect of above said principal offence under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, it will also not be proper to maintain conviction under Section 341 IPC which is a preparatory part of the principal offence.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in Spl. (POCSO) No.08 of 2023 as indicated earlier are hereby set aside.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Rajendra Debbarma @ Rajen v. The State of Tripura (Case No.: Crl. A(J) No.52 of 2024)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Ratan Datta, A. Baidya and S. Dhanuk

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rajib Saha

Click here to read/download the Judgment