The Jharkhand High Court has set aside a trial court's judgment that had convicted a man from Seraikella Kharsawan district under Section 354 of the IPC. The reasoning? The court found that a marriage proposal, even one made forcibly, does not by itself amount to outraging a woman's modesty unless there is clear evidence of bad intention.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to June 2017. According to the written complaint filed by the victim's father at Chandil Police Station, his ten-year-old daughter was returning from school around 11:30 AM when the accused, then aged 26, caught her by the hand and allegedly tried to take her away, intending to marry her. She raised an alarm, and nearby villagers rushed in and rescued her.
Based on this complaint, police registered a case under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial began before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella Kharsawan. Six witnesses were examined during the trial, including the victim herself, her father, and the investigating officer.
In August 2023, the trial court convicted the man under Section 354 IPC, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000. He was acquitted, however, of the POCSO charge.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellant, represented through the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, challenged the conviction. His counsel argued that the victim's own statement only spoke of a marriage proposal, and that he had held her hand for a few minutes at most. There was no allegation of any "bad intention," which, the counsel argued, is essential for a conviction under Section 354.
To support this, the defence relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that Section 354 requires proof of criminal force applied with intent to outrage modesty, and that vague allegations without evidence of intent cannot sustain a conviction.
The State's counsel, on the other hand, defended the trial court's findings and argued that there was sufficient material on record to justify the conviction.
Court's Observation
After going through the witness statements and case record, Justice Rajesh Kumar noted that the victim's own deposition suggested the accused had simply proposed marriage to her, without any indication of bad intent.
The bench observed that the essential ingredient required to attract Section 354 of the IPC was missing. As the order records, the girl had stated that the accused caught her hand and wanted to take her towards the forest for marriage, but nothing in her testimony pointed to an intent to outrage her modesty.
Decision
The Jharkhand High Court quashed the trial court's judgment of conviction dated 22 August 2023 and the sentencing order dated 28 August 2023 in the POCSO case.
The appeal was allowed. The court also noted that the appellant had already completed serving his sentence and was out of custody.
Records of the case have been directed to be sent back to the trial court.
Case Details
Case Title: Budhu Murmu @ Gudu Murmu v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 843 of 2023
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar
Decision Date: 8 July 2026
