Page No.# 1/9 vs State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 8462 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs State Of Assam on 11 November, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010129722013




                                                                2025:GAU-AS:15246

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.A./111/2013

            MD. NUR SIDDIQUE ALI
            S/O LATE MUSLIM ALI, R/O VILL. ISHAPUR, UNDER RANGIA POLICE
            STATION IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP, ASSAM.



            VERSUS



            STATE OF ASSAM




Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.D K BAGCHI, MR.P KATAKI

Advocate for the Respondent : P BARO( INFORMANT), MR G BORDOLOI ( INFORMANT),PP,
ASSAM
                                                                            Page No.# 2/9




                                     -B E F O R E -


                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI


  For the Appellant (s)    : Mr. P Kataki, Mr. D K Bagchi    Advocates.

 For the Respondent(s)     : Ms. S H Bora, APP for the State;
                             Mr. G Bordoloi, Mr. P Boro, Mr. A Botsulum,
                             for the Informant.


Date on which judgment is reserved :          N/A


Date of pronouncement of judgment :           11.11.2025


Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment ?      :       No.



Whether the full judgment has been

Pronounced                                :    Yes.
                                                                         Page No.# 3/9




                         JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent as well as Mr. A Botsolum and Mr. P Baro, learned counsels for the informant.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Rangia in Sessions Case No. 40(K)/2010, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 months.

3. The appellant was initially charged under Sections 376 and 417 IPC, but the learned trial court, not being satisfied that the charge of rape was established beyond reasonable doubt, convicted him under Section 354 IPC.

4. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the appellant had been secretly visiting the house of the informant for about a year prior to the incident and developed an illicit relationship with the informant's sister, a girl aged about 15 years. On the pretext of marrying her, the appellant established physical relations with the victim, as a result of which she became pregnant. When the family confronted the appellant, he absconded from the village, leading to delay Page No.# 4/9

in lodging the FIR. On such complaint, an investigation was undertaken, and charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.

5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the victim (PW-1); her brother/informant (PW-2); her mother (PW-3); neighbors (P.Ws. 4, 5 & 6); the doctor (PW-7) the Investigating Officer (PW-8) and the Magistrate (PW-9), who recorded the 164 CrPC Statement of the victim. Thereafter, all the incriminating materials were put to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he generally denied the same and adduced 1 defense witness.

6. The learned trial court found the evidence of the victim consistent and corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, and though it found the proof of penetration insufficient for a conviction under Section 376 IPC, held that the conduct of the accused clearly amounted to an offence under Section 354 IPC.

7. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.

8. Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the victim was not proved by reliable evidence and that the medical opinion assessed the age of the victim to be between 14 to 16 years. Hence, the benefit of the upper margin should be extended to the appellant. He further submits that the sexual relationship was consensual and devoid of any force and the delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

9. Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the appellant by drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2009 and the FIR was lodged on 31.10.2009 and under the IPC post 2013 amendment, under Section 354, punishment has been stipulated therein as imprisonment for two years or fine or both and submits that since the trial court has sentenced the Page No.# 5/9

appellant to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment, the same is excessive, as at that relevant point of time the maximum sentence to be imposed for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC was two years or fine.

10. Per contra, Ms. S H Bora, learned APP, Assam, submits that at no point of time the defense had challenged the age of the victim and hence, such belated arguments on the age of the victim shall not be entertained by this appellate Court. She further submits that it is clearly established that the appellant had been secretly visiting the victim when she was alone in the house in the absence of her parents and brother and on the pretext of marrying her, continuously had sexual intercourse with her, resulting in her pregnancy. She further submits that the victim has constantly stood by her version, right from her initial deposition made before the investigating officer to her deposition before the trial court and that the surrounding facts as deposed by her is also supported by the other prosecution witnesses including the medical evidence. She further submits that the testimony of the victim being trustworthy and wholly reliable, the impugned conviction warrants no interference by this Court. She further submits that since the victim was a minor, her consent is immaterial in connection with sexual offences in the eyes of law.

11. Mr. P Baro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that he has received instruction from the informant of the case not to oppose to the instant appeal.

12. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.

13. The issues for determination in the instant appeal are -

Page No.# 6/9

(i). Whether the acts of the appellant amount to assault or use of criminal force intending to outrage the modesty of a woman, thereby attracting Section 354 IPC.

(ii). Whether the conviction and sentence call for interference in appeal.

14. It appears that the brother of the victim clearly stated in the FIR that the victim was aged 15 years and that one year ahead of filing of the FIR, the accused used to secretly visit the house of the informant and was involved in illegal sexual intercourse with his sister for which she became pregnant.

15. Section 354 IPC, reads as under -

"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both "

16. The essential ingredients of the offence are:

(i) that the accused must have assaulted or used criminal force on a woman;

(ii) that such act must have been done with the intention to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that it is likely to do so.

17. The essence of the offence lies in the intention or knowledge of the accused, and not merely in the degree of physical contact.

18. In Tarkeshwar Sahu -Vs- State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in (2006) 8 SCC 560, the Apex Court held that to constitute an offence under section 354 IPC, the culpable intension of the accused to outrage the modesty of a women and or knowledge that such act would result in outraging her Page No.# 7/9

modesty is sufficient. Undoubtedly, the reaction of the women is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. The Apex Court accordingly laid down the test for ascertaining whether the modesty of a woman has been outraged, assaulted or insulted is that the action of the offender should be such that it may perceive as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a women. Modesty is the attributable of female sex and she possesses it irrespective of her age. The question of infringing the modesty of a woman would depend upon the customs and habits of the people. Acts which are outrageous to morality would be outrageous to modesty of women. No particular yardstick of universal application can be made for measuring the amplitude of modesty of a woman as it may vary from society to society.

19. In the instant case, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the appellant had been secretly visiting the victim's house when the family members were not present and was indulging in physical acts with 15 years old girl on the false pretext of marriage. The testimony of the victim that the appellant " did bad things" with her and made her pregnant is direct, credible, and unshaken in cross-examination.

20. Thus, the intention to outrage modesty is evident from the appellant's conduct, i.e., visiting the girl clandestinely, promising marriage to obtain sexual favours, and thereafter absconding when pregnancy occurred. These acts unmistakably show knowledge that the modesty of the girl was being outraged.

21. The victim's modesty, representing her bodily dignity and honour, stood gravely violated when the appellant induced her into physical intimacy under deceit, resulting in pregnancy. Such conduct squarely satisfies both the act and mental element required under Section 354 IPC.

Page No.# 8/9

22. The explanation offered for delay in lodging the FIR that the family was waiting for the accused to fulfill his promise of marriage is reasonable and consistent with rural social conditions and family honour concerns. The delay, therefore, does not impair the credibility of the prosecution case.

23. On overall appraisal, this Court finds that the learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and applied the correct principles of law. The essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the appellant is based on sound reasoning and calls for no interference. The sentence of two years for rigorous imprisonment as inflicted by the trial court, even if, considered the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence under Section 354 IPC post 2013 amendment, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the same does not appears to be excessive. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as regards reducing the sentence imposed under the impugned judgment under appeal cannot be accepted.

24. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed.

25. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Rangia in Sessions Case No. 40 (K)/2010, under Section 354 IPC is affirmed.

26. The appellant shall surrender to serve the remaining sentence, if any. The bail bond, if furnished, stands cancelled.

27. Return the TCR.

Page No.# 9/9

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant