#Section 354 IPC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute appellate findings on evidence in cases of assault against women’s modesty, even where probation is sought. This ruling reinforces that factual credibility, once affirmed by two lower courts, stands unless demonstrably perverse - safeguarding victims from procedural delays and judicial overreach.

Orissa High Court upholds conviction under Section 354 IPC but substitutes imprisonment with probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing courts' mandatory duty to consider reformative justice for first-time offenders in non-aggravated cases. The ruling sets a precedent for balancing punishment with rehabilitation in modesty outrage offenses.

The Bombay High Court acquitted the accused of rape under POCSO due to lack of medical proof of penetration, but upheld conviction for sexual assault based on corroborative bite mark evidence. This clarifies that non-penetrative sexual contact with a child, even without biological evidence, can sustain conviction under Section 7 of POCSO - reinforcing that medical corroboration is not mandatory for all forms of child sexual abuse.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that a child victim's credible testimony, corroborated by parental evidence and the accused's admission under Section 313 CrPC, is adequate for conviction under Section 354 IPC-even without independent witnesses or prompt FIR. The judgment reinforces that procedural lapses cannot override substantive justice in child sexual offence cases.

Orissa High Court sets a precedent where medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony led to the acquittal of rape charges, while still upholding conviction under Section 354 IPC for outraging modesty. The ruling underscores the critical weight of forensic proof in sexual offence cases and clarifies the evidentiary standards for atrocities under the SC/ST Act.

Bombay High Court affirms that a conviction under Section 354 IPC can rest solely on the victim’s testimony if it is consistent, credible, and withstands scrutiny. The ruling eliminates the need for corroborative evidence or physical proof, reinforcing victim-centric adjudication in modesty offence cases.