top of page
Question Bank
Question
What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction for the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
Solution
To establish an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution must prove three essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. First, the person assaulted must be a woman. Second, the accused must have used criminal force on her. Third, and most crucially, this criminal force must have been used with the intention to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that her modesty was likely to be outraged. The courts have clarified that intention is not the sole criterion; the offence can also be committed if the accused knows that his act is likely to outrage the woman's modesty. The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex, and the culpable intention or knowledge of the accused is the gravamen of the offence.
Question
Under what provision of the Indian Evidence Act can a previous statement made by a witness be used to corroborate their later testimony in court, and what qualifies an authority as "legally competent" to record such a statement?
Solution
Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act allows a previous statement made by a witness to be used for the purpose of corroborating their testimony in court. This applies if the statement was made to any person at or about the time the incident occurred, or to any authority legally competent to investigate the matter. An authority is considered "legally competent" not only if its power flows from a statute but also if it is authorized legally by the State Government to investigate the facts. Statements recorded by such a competent authority are admissible for corroboration irrespective of the time gap between the incident and the recording of the statement, as they gain probative value from the official nature of the inquiry.
Question
In a criminal trial, what is the standard of proof required for a conviction, and is the testimony of a single eyewitness sufficient to meet this standard?
Solution
The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This standard pertains to the quality and credibility of evidence, not its quantity. It is a well-settled legal principle that the evidence is weighed and not counted. Therefore, the testimony of even a single eyewitness can be sufficient to sustain a conviction, provided it is found to be truthful, consistent, and inspiring of confidence. The court must be satisfied that the sole witness is wholly reliable and that there are no circumstances casting doubt on their testimony. The non-examination of every other person present does not, by itself, weaken the prosecution's case if the account of the sole eyewitness is unimpeachable.
Question
How does the Indian Evidence Act treat the opinion of a handwriting expert, and what is the general judicial approach towards relying on such evidence?
Solution
The opinion of a handwriting expert is considered relevant evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, this type of evidence is generally viewed as an extremely weak type of evidence and is never treated as conclusive proof on its own. The judiciary is often wary to give too much weight to such expert opinion because it is considered to be of a frail character with known fallibilities. It is an established principle that uncorroborated evidence of a handwriting expert is insufficient for a definite finding. Before acting on it, courts look for corroboration from clear, direct, or circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence of persons who saw the document being executed is often considered the best available evidence and can outweigh the opinion of an expert.
Question
While the conviction for a criminal offence depends on legal proof, what factors can the court consider when deciding on the appropriate sentence to be awarded?
Solution
Sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion exercised after considering the facts and circumstances of each case. While the conviction is based solely on the legal proof of guilt, the sentence can be influenced by various mitigating factors. These may include the advanced age of the convict, their physical health and ailments, family circumstances such as the responsibility to care for dependents, a history of past meritorious service, and the fact that the convict has undergone a prolonged trial. The court may, in a special case, consider these factors to be adequate reasons for modifying the sentence, for instance, by reducing it to the period of imprisonment already undergone, even while upholding the conviction.
bottom of page