Marriage Proposal Without Criminal Intent Cannot Sustain Section 354 IPC Conviction, Holds Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court set aside a POCSO court's conviction under Section 354 IPC, finding that a man's act of catching a girl's hand while proposing marriage lacked the criminal intent the section requires.

Justice Rajesh Kumar, sitting singly at the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, has acquitted Budhu Murmu @ Gudu Murmu of an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, quashing a conviction and sentence handed down by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella Kharsawan. The trial court had, on 22 August 2023, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The High Court found that the evidence on record disclosed no more than a marriage proposal accompanied by brief physical contact, and that without proof of criminal intent, the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC were absent.

The Incident and the Trial Court Proceedings

The case began with a written report lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Chandil Police Station, on 21 June 2017 by Samar Kumar Hembrom, the father of the victim. He stated that his daughter, aged about 10 years, had gone to school in Chakulia. While returning home at around 11.30 A.M., the accused Buddhu Murmu @ Guddu Murmu, aged about 26 years, allegedly outraged her modesty by forcibly catching her hand and attempting to take her away with the intention of marrying her. The girl raised an alarm, villagers reached the spot, and she was freed.

Chandil P.S. Case No. 106 of 2017 was registered on 22 June 2017 under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 14 July 2017. Charges under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act were framed on 23 January 2018, and the accused pleaded not guilty.

Six prosecution witnesses deposed at trial. P.W.1, Durjan Murmu, stated that he heard the victim's alarm, came out of his house, saw the accused dragging her by the hand, and that he and others then apprehended the accused. He also stated that a panchayat was held over the incident but without any resolution. P.W.2, Samar Kumar Hembrom, the informant, admitted in cross-examination that he came to know of the incident only from his wife and not from any direct witness. P.W.3, Dhananjay Mahato, and P.W.4, Gandhi Ram Murmu, broadly reiterated the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Importantly, P.W.3 acknowledged that the police recorded his statement one and a half months after the occurrence.

P.W.5, the victim girl herself, deposed that on 21 June 2017, as she was returning from school, the accused caught her hand near the Club House and started dragging her towards the forest. She raised an alarm and villagers freed her. She stated that the accused was taking her away for a forced marriage. She had also given a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on which she placed her signature. In cross-examination, she confirmed that the written report was penned by her father, and that she had disclosed to the police that the accused had caught her hand with a view to performing marriage. P.W.6, Bisheshwar Kumar, ASI, was the investigating officer who recorded witness statements and visited the place of occurrence.

The documentary evidence included the written application (Exhibit-1), the victim's signature on her Section 164 statement (Exhibit-2), an endorsement (Exhibit-1/2), and the formal FIR (Exhibit-3).

After a full-fledged trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC and acquitted him of the charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The Legal Issue: Criminal Intent Under Section 354 IPC

The sole question before the High Court was whether the conduct attributed to the appellant — catching the hand of a 10-year-old girl while proposing marriage — satisfied the ingredients of Section 354 of the IPC, which punishes assault or criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.

Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Omiya Anusha, appearing through the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, submitted that the victim's own deposition disclosed nothing more than a marriage proposal. The allegation was that the accused caught hold of the victim's hand for a few minutes while making that proposal. No bad intention was alleged, and bad intention — mens rea — is a sine qua non for attracting Section 354 IPC. Merely making a marriage proposal, it was argued, cannot constitute the offence.

In support, counsel relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 604. The High Court extracted two paragraphs from that decision. Paragraph 20 sets out the three requirements: the offence must be committed against a woman, criminal force must be applied, and that force must carry the intent to outrage her modesty. Paragraph 24 states: “for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court.” The Supreme Court had held in that case that where no direct allegation or supporting evidence of intent could be found in the FIR, investigation report, or charge-sheet, a case under Section 354 IPC was not made out.

The State, through learned A.P.P. Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, supported the conviction, contending that sufficient material existed on record and the trial court had rightly returned a finding of guilt.

How Justice Rajesh Kumar Reasoned

Justice Rajesh Kumar examined the deposition of P.W.5, the victim girl, which was the centrepiece of the prosecution's case. On that examination, the court found that the accused had merely proposed marriage to her. There was no evidence of a bad intention beyond the act of catching her hand in the context of that proposal.

The court applied the test set out in Naresh Aneja: criminal force used in the course of a marriage proposal, where no separate ill intent is established, does not automatically satisfy the mental element that Section 354 IPC demands. The ingredient of intent to outrage modesty was held to be absent on the facts disclosed by the victim herself.

The trial court's reasoning, which had found the physical act sufficient to sustain the charge, was rejected. The High Court's analysis turned on the quality of the intent disclosed by the evidence, not merely the physical act of catching the hand. Since the victim's own account confined the conduct to a marriage proposal and a brief restraint, and since no other evidence established a separate criminal purpose, the conviction could not stand.

Order

The High Court allowed Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 843 of 2023. The judgment of conviction dated 22 August 2023 and the order of sentence dated 28 August 2023 passed in POCSO Case No. 15 of 2017 arising out of Chandil P.S. Case No. 106 of 2017, by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella Kharsawan, were quashed and set aside.

Counsel for the appellant informed the court that the appellant had already been released from custody after serving out his sentence. The trial court record was directed to be sent to the concerned court forthwith. The judgment was delivered on 8 July 2026.