Introduction:

In the case Sri Bibhishan Ghosh v. The State of Tripura (Crl.A.No. 01 of 2024), the Tripura High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing the prosecution’s failure to establish the offence of using criminal force or assault. The appellant, Bibh Ghosh, had been convicted by the Trial Court on January 25, 2024, for allegedly touching the victim inappropriately, but the High Court found that the evidence presented did not support the charge of criminal assault or force required to sustain a conviction under Section 354 of the IPC. Justice Biswajit Palit, while delivering the judgment, highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially due to the absence of corroborative evidence such as independent witnesses or medical reports.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The prosecution’s case was based on an FIR filed by the victim, who claimed that on December 3, 2020, she visited a medical shop to receive injections for pain relief and was assaulted by the accused, Bibhishan Ghosh. The victim alleged that while administering a massage, the accused removed her clothing and physically abused her, even attempting to strangle her. The FIR included charges under Sections 341, 354 (A), 354 (B), and 307 of the IPC, based on the victim’s testimony of being sexually assaulted and nearly killed by the appellant. The Public Prosecutor argued that the FIR and the victim’s testimony were sufficient to prove that the appellant committed the offence as alleged, and the appellant’s cross-examination did not effectively challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Arguments of the Defense:

On the other hand, the defence counsel for Bibhishan Ghosh argued that the prosecution had failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations. The defence pointed out that the victim’s statement only mentioned that the accused touched her body, without specifying any criminal force or assault. Furthermore, there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the victim’s account, and the medical officer did not report any injuries on the victim’s body. The defence also highlighted the absence of any injury reports from the investigation and the failure of the prosecution to produce the Magistrate who recorded the victim’s statement. Additionally, the FIR was not duly proved, raising doubts about the veracity of the entire case.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

In its analysis, the Tripura High Court noted that the prosecution’s evidence was inadequate to establish the essential elements of the crime under Section 354 of the IPC. The Court observed that while the victim’s statement was crucial, it did not provide specific details about how the appellant assaulted her. The victim’s claim of being touched by the accused was not sufficient to establish the necessary elements of criminal force or assault. The Court also noted the lack of medical evidence or any injury reports to substantiate the allegations of physical abuse or strangulation.

Moreover, the Court found that no other witnesses were present at the scene to support the victim’s account. The investigation did not produce any evidence that would confirm the victim’s claim of visiting the shop for an injection, further weakening the case against the appellant. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence on record was insufficient to support a conviction.

As a result, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The appellant, Bibhishan Ghosh, was acquitted of all charges, and the Court directed that his surety be discharged from the liability of the bond.