When Victim's Testimony Is Inconsistent, and Witnesses Reside Under Same Roof But Deny the Incident—Accused Deserves Benefit of Doubt: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted Under Section 354 IPC

“If Two Views Are Possible, the View Favorable to the Accused Must Prevail”—Calcutta High Court quashed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 354 and 323 IPC, delivering a detailed judgment that underscores the foundational criminal law principle that “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is non-negotiable in cases involving serious allegations like outraging modesty or attempted sexual assault.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 17th September 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia, which had sentenced the appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 354 IPC and one year under Section 323 IPC, to run concurrently.

“When Witnesses Living in Same House Deny Hearing Anything—It Casts a Deep Shadow Over the Prosecution’s Version”

The incident dated 25th July 2012, as alleged by the victim, involved the accused forcibly entering her room, attempting to disrobe and sexually assault her, resulting in a scuffle, broken bangles, and alleged vomiting due to trauma. The FIR was lodged three days later, which the prosecution attributed to hospitalization.

However, two of the prime prosecution witnesses—PW3 (Swapna Modak) and PW4 (Chhobi Rani Modak)—who lived under the same roof, completely denied witnessing or hearing anything related to the incident.

The Court found this highly significant:

“When other residents of the same premises do not support the prosecution case, and are not even declared hostile (in one case), the version of the victim becomes doubtful.”

The Court also emphasized that no injury consistent with scuffle or torn clothing was found in the medical report, and the broken bangle allegedly involved in the incident was not seized by police.

“Victim’s Own Statements Before Magistrate, FIR, and Trial Are Inconsistent—Credibility Compromised”

While the trial court had relied heavily on the victim’s sole testimony to convict the accused, the High Court found material deviations between her statement under Section 164 CrPC, her FIR, and her deposition during trial.

“In a prosecution where the sole reliance is on the testimony of the victim, consistency in her narration becomes imperative. Where the core facts vary across forums, the version cannot be held cogent and trustworthy.”

Justice Das found that the victim’s omission of key facts from the FIR and medical history—such as scuffle, broken bangles, vomiting, or prior harassment by the accused—significantly weakened the case.

“Medical Evidence Must Corroborate Allegation of Assault—Omission of Vomiting or Scuffle Injuries Raises Doubt”

The medical officer (PW8) testified that while there was tenderness on some body parts, there was no indication of vomiting, sexual assault, or any bruises consistent with torn clothing or a struggle. Most crucially, the injury report was not even put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, violating procedural fairness.

Quoting from Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam and Rajkumar Singh alias Raju alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated:

“The circumstances which are not put to the accused under Section 313 cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration.”

Hence, the Court held: “The injury report, not placed as an incriminating material before the accused, loses its credibility and cannot be used to convict him.”

“Trial Court Cannot Cherry-Pick Parts of Testimony to Suit Conviction While Ignoring Glaring Omissions”

The trial court had disbelieved the victim’s version insofar as the attempt to rape was concerned, but still convicted the accused under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) and Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt).

The High Court found this approach untenable:

“Once the victim failed to inspire confidence about the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, and failed to disclose the entire truth, the same evidence cannot form basis for conviction under a lesser charge.”

It was also noted that the alleged motive—tenant-landlord dispute over spitting near the gate—was supported by other witnesses (PWs 6 and 7), lending further credence to the defence narrative.

“Benefit of Doubt Cannot Be Denied Where Prosecution Itself Paints Two Conflicting Stories”

The Court cited the celebrated principle from Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and held:

“If two views are possible on the evidence—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favorable to the accused must be adopted.”

Finding the testimony of the victim insufficiently corroborated, inconsistent, and contradicted by other residents and medical evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

 “Order of Conviction Not Sustainable in Law—Accused Acquitted of All Charges”

Setting aside the conviction, the Court observed:

“When the core of the prosecution story collapses under scrutiny, and witnesses from the same house contradict it, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The conviction cannot be sustained.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged from his bail bond under Section 437A CrPC (now Section 481 of BNSS, 2023).

Date of Decision: 4th September 2025