E-Paper
Marriage proposal without criminal intent is not ‘outraging modesty’: JHC
Jharkhand High Court quashes Budhu Murmu's IPC Section 354 conviction, ruling no criminal intent in marriage proposal, despite initial accusations.
The Jharkhand High Court (JHC) has set aside the conviction of a 40-yr-old man under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that merely making a marriage proposal and catching a person’s hand without criminal intent does not satisfy the legal requirements for outraging a woman’s modesty.
A high court advocate close to the matter said on Friday, “The single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Budhu Murmu, quashing the August 2023 judgment of a Special POCSO Court in Seraikella Kharsawan that had sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment.”
The case originated from an incident on June 21, 2017, in Chandil. According to the prosecution, the informant’s 10-yr-old daughter was returning home from school when the accused caught her hand and dragged her toward a nearby forest. The prosecution alleged that the accused was attempting to take her away for a forced marriage.
Villagers who heard the child’s alarms intervened and apprehended the accused. While the trial court subsequently acquitted Murmu of charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, it convicted him under Section 354 of the IPC for using criminal force to outrage modesty.
During the appeal, the advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the accused had only proposed marriage and held the victim’s hand for a few minutes. The defence emphasised that no “bad intention”—the crucial foundation required to invoke Section 354 IPC—was present or established.
To support this contention, the defence cited a Supreme Court precedent (Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh), which establishes that mens rea (criminal intent) must be clearly demonstrated rather than inferred from vague statements to satisfy the core components of Section 354 IPC.
Upon perusing the case records and analysing the testimony of the victim, Justice Rajesh Kumar observed: “It appears from the deposition of the victim girl that the boy had merely proposed her for marriage and there was no bad intention on his part. As such, the ingredient of Section 354 of the IPC is not attracted.”
