Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, a man, was convicted by the trial court for offenses under Section 354 (assaulting or using criminal force against a woman to outrage her modesty) and Section 509 (insulting a woman’s modesty through words, gestures, or actions) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on a public bus where the complainant alleged that the accused made inappropriate gestures, winked at her, and forcibly held and kissed her on the lips despite her objections. She slapped the accused and was supported by a co-passenger who asked him to leave the bus.

The accused contested the charges by claiming that the complainant was the daughter of a police officer and that the incident had been fabricated as part of a false implication. He further argued that since he did not know the complainant and lacked a clear motive, the allegations were implausible. He also claimed that the absence of external injuries, despite being apprehended by the public, disproved the prosecution’s case.

Contention of the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that the absence of visible injuries on his body, despite the public allegedly beating him, disproved the version provided by the complainant. He further contended that the complainant’s allegation was false, partly due to her relationship with a police officer, and that as they were strangers, he would not have dared to engage in such behavior without any prior motive.

Contention of the Respondent (Complainant):

The complainant maintained that the accused had harassed her in a public setting and made unwelcome physical contact, which caused her immense distress. Her version was corroborated by the testimony of public witnesses who had intervened during the incident. The witnesses also confirmed that the accused was apprehended while attempting to escape after the assault.

Court’s Observations:

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted the deeply concerning reality that, despite the existence of stringent laws designed to protect women, harassment in public spaces remains a common issue. She emphasized that the actions of the accused illustrated that such harassment, especially in public transport, persists, even after decades of independence. The Court lamented that such acts highlight the audacity of offenders who believe they can commit crimes without facing consequences.

Justice Sharma further noted that sexual offenses are often opportunistic and that the lack of prior acquaintance between the complainant and the accused does not weaken the case. The Court dismissed the claim of false implication, stating that the mere fact that the complainant was the daughter of a police officer could not be held against her. Additionally, the presence of independent witnesses who were strangers to both parties and their willingness to testify was a significant factor in upholding the complainant’s version.

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner, stating that there was no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that public witnesses played a crucial role in this case by not only intervening but also providing consistent statements that corroborated the complainant’s version of events. The Court condemned the public’s silence and inaction, which can empower offenders, and stressed that everyone has a duty to stand against such harassment.

Credits: Deeksha Rai