Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court, in a 2009 judgment, modified the sentence of a man convicted of outraging the modesty of a minor girl, considering the passage of nearly 20 years since the incident and the advanced age of the accused. The case stemmed from a 1989 incident where the accused, then around 60 years old, was alleged to have attempted to sexually assault an 8-year-old girl.

Originally, the appellant was tried under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to an attempt to commit rape. However, the trial court (2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger) convicted him under Section 354 IPC for assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

The incident allegedly occurred on 14th November 1989 at 10 AM in a public area near a tea stall. According to the prosecution, the accused lured the minor girl from the stall under the pretense of picking vegetable leaves and then tried to assault her. However, the entire case rested heavily on the statement of the young victim, who was only 8 years old at the time.

The High Court took note of the following crucial points:

• The victim did not clearly remember the sequence of events or circumstances under which she went with the appellant.
• Other prosecution witnesses were hearsay witnesses who had no direct knowledge of the incident and based their statements solely on what the child had said.
• The defense argued that the case was falsely lodged due to a rivalry between the accused and the victim’s family. The accused and the girl’s maternal grandfather were competing for the railway grass-cutting contract, and the appellant claimed he had been falsely implicated due to this animosity.

While upholding the conviction under Section 354 IPC, the High Court considered that:

• The accused had already spent three months and six days in custody.
• He was about 60 years old at the time of conviction in 1993, and by the time the appeal was decided in 2009, he was around 75 years old.
• Given the long time gap and age of the appellant, further imprisonment was not necessary.

Thus, the Court modified the sentence, limiting it to the time already served in custody and imposed a fine of ₹1,000 payable to the victim. In case of default, the appellant would have to undergo two more months of rigorous imprisonment.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment highlights how courts may exercise leniency in sentencing when substantial time has passed and the convict is of advanced age. While upholding the seriousness of offences involving minor victims, the Court balanced justice with humanitarian considerations such as age, health, and rehabilitation prospects.

For the public, it underscores that even old cases involving sexual offences against children will not be dismissed lightly, but sentencing can be adjusted based on evolving circumstances. For the legal system, it affirms the principle that justice includes both punishment and proportionality, especially where the accused has already served time and decades have passed.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Was the conviction under Section 354 IPC valid?
  • ✔️ Yes. The trial court’s finding was based on available evidence, though limited, and not interfered with.
• Should further imprisonment be imposed after nearly two decades and given the convict’s age?
  • ❌ No. The High Court modified the sentence to time already served and imposed a fine instead.
• Was there sufficient basis for full acquittal?
  • ❌ No. Despite inconsistencies, the Court did not find grounds to overturn the conviction entirely.
• Final outcome:
  • Appeal dismissed with modification. Sentence limited to time already served plus ₹1,000 fine.

Case Title

Latan Yadav vs. The State of Bihar

Case Number

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 350 of 1993
(Arising out of Sessions Trial No. 394 of 1990)

Citation(s)

2021(1)PLJR 84

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Justice Sheema Ali Khan

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the Appellant: Mr. S. N. Prasad, Amicus Curiae
• For the State: Mr. R. N. Jha, APP

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MjQjMzUwIzE5OTMjMSNP-kvoduHEZuEg=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.