Delhi District Court
Suresh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 31 July, 2025
DLND010031182021 Page 1 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr. FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05 NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI Criminal Appeal No.47/21 In the matter of :- Suresh S/o. Sh. Chander Singh R/o.360, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, Near Badarpur, New Delhi .....Appellant (represented by Mohd. Shakil, Adv.) Versus 1. State .....Respondent No.1 (represented by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State) 2. X W/o. Y R/o. Z (Complete particulars withheld to protect privacy) .....Respondent No.2 / Complainant CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(3) Cr.P.C. Date of institution : 30.03.2021 Date when judgment reserved : 15.07.2025 Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025 JUDGMENT:
-
1. This appeal, filed under Section 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), challenges the judgment dated 07.12.2020 and the order on sentence dated 01.03.2021 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-02), Digitally SAURABH signed by PARTAP SAURABH SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH LALER DLND010031182021 Page 2 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Case No. 59279/2016, arising from FIR No. 147/2014 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. The appellant, Suresh, seeks to set aside his conviction and sentence, contending that the trial court's findings are erroneous and unsustainable.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The prosecution's case, as delineated in the FIR and charge sheet, is that on 10.07.2014, at approximately 9:20 AM, at premises No. 15/C, Railway Officer Colony, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, the appellant, an electrician employed in the Electricity Department, unlawfully entered the residence of the complainant, 'Ms. X'. The complainant was alone with her two-year-old child. The appellant allegedly used criminal force by catching her from behind, attempting to get close, and touching her cheek with the intent to outrage her modesty, an offense punishable under Section 354 IPC. When the complainant raised an alarm and attempted to contact her husband, the appellant fled. The complainant's husband, PW-2, returned promptly after being informed and contacted the police via emergency number 100. The appellant was identified by the complainant, arrested from his office at SSE Power Ltd., Sarojini Nagar, and a charge sheet was filed on 10.03.2015.
3. The trial commenced with the framing of charges on 31.07.2015, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After evaluating the prosecution's evidence, including testimonies of seven witnesses and the appellant's defense, the learned trial court convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC. On 01.03.2021, he was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with an additional 15 days' simple imprisonment in default of DLND010031182021 Page 3 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri payment. The appellant, aggrieved, filed this appeal, and the sentence was suspended pending appeal vide order dated 30.03.2021, subject to bail conditions.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
4. The prosecution presented a robust case through the following witnesses:
a. PW-1 (Ms. X): Testified that on 10.07.2014, at about 9:15 AM, the appellant, known to her as an electrician, entered her residence under the pretext of inquiring about the main house occupants. After leaving briefly, he returned, caught her from behind while she was sweeping, attempted to close in, and touched her cheek. She resisted, raised an alarm, and called her husband. The appellant offered her money, saying, "Kitne paise legi," before fleeing. She proved her written complaint (Ex. PW1/A), arrest memo (Ex. PW1/B), and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW1/C). Her cross-examination reaffirmed her account, denying any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. b. PW-2 (Sh. Tara Bahadur, Complainant's Husband): Corroborated that at 9:00 AM, the appellant called to confirm his absence, asking, "Abhi ghar par ho ya nikal gaye?" PW-2 replied he had left for work. At 9:30 AM, his wife reported the appellant's misbehavior. He returned within 25 minutes, called the police, and accompanied them to arrest the appellant. He proved the personal search memo (Ex. PW2/A). His cross- examination confirmed no prior dispute with the appellant. c. PW-3 (Ct. Vikas): Testified to joining the investigation at SSE Power Ltd., where the appellant was arrested based on the complainant's identification. He proved the arrest memo (Ex. PW1/B). d. PW-4 (Retd. W/SI Saroj Sharma): Proved the application for recording the complainant's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW4/A). e. PW-5 (Retd. ASI Dhruv Narayan): Confirmed registration of FIR No. 147/2014 (Ex. PW5/A) and endorsement on the rukka (Ex. PW5/B). f. PW-6 (SI Manoj Kumar): The initial Investigating Officer (IO), who received DD No. 14A, met the complainant and her husband at the spot, DLND010031182021 Page 4 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri arrested the appellant after identification, and prepared the rukka and search memos (Ex. PW1/A, PW1/B, PW2/A). He recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before handing over the investigation. g. PW-7 (Retd. Inspector K.L. Yadav): Took over the investigation on 10.03.2015, recorded PW-2's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and filed the charge sheet.
h. Ld. Magistrate, who recorded statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. was not examined: Dropped pursuant to the appellant's admission under Section 294 Cr.P.C. regarding the complainant's Section 164 statement.
5. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations, claiming false implication because he refused the complainant's request to tamper the electricity meter. As DW-1, he reiterated this defense, admitting prior acquaintance with PW-2 due to electricity repairs. No other defense witnesses were examined.
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT
6. The learned trial court, in its judgment dated 07.12.2020, held that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant used criminal force with intent to outrage the complainant's modesty, satisfying Section 354 IPC. The court relied on the consistent, credible testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, supported by contemporaneous documents (Ex. PW1/A, PW1/B, PW1/C). The appellant's defense of meter tampering was rejected as improbable, given his admission that the meter was located outside, negating any need to enter the complainant's residence. The court emphasized the prompt reporting and absence of enmity, lending credence to the prosecution's case.
7. On 01.03.2021, the trial court sentenced the appellant to one year of simple imprisonment and a Rs. 10,000/- fine, balancing the gravity of the offense DLND010031182021 Page 5 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri against his clean antecedents. The court noted the societal need to deter offenses against women's modesty, as reflected in its sentencing rationale. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
8. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, Suresh, in the memorandum challenge the trial court's judgment dated 07.12.2020 and sentence order dated 01.03.2021 on several fronts, primarily asserting errors in evidence appreciation, failure to address contradictions, and insufficient proof of the offense under Section 354 IPC. Specifically, the appellant contends that the trial court committed a gross error by not properly appreciating the facts and evidence, instead relying on conjectures and surmises; failed to consider PW-2's statement where the complainant reported only "misbehavior" over the telephone without mentioning outrage of modesty; ignored contradictions between PW-1 and PW- 2's testimonies; did not note that the complainant never stated the appellant was arrested at her instance; disregarded inconsistencies in the complainant's description of the assault, such as catching from behind versus trying to close in; did not appreciate the prosecution's failure to establish any motive for the appellant while evidence suggested police implication; erred in convicting based solely on interested witnesses deposing falsely and failed to recognize the lack of proof of outraging modesty.
9. The appellant seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence, praying for acquittal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
10. Appellant's Submissions: Learned counsel argued that the trial court's findings are perverse, ignoring material contradictions in PW-1 and PW-2's testimonies, particularly the complainant's failure to specify "outrage of modesty" to her husband. The prosecution's case lacks independent corroboration, and the DLND010031182021 Page 6 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri appellant's defense of false implication due to meter tampering was not rebutted. The absence of motive and reliance on interested witnesses (complainant and her husband) render the conviction unsustainable. Counsel cited the need for strict proof under Section 354 IPC, referencing precedents emphasizing scrutiny of sole witness testimonies.
11. State's Submissions: Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court correctly appreciated the cogent, consistent evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, establishing the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Minor discrepancies are inconsequential, and the appellant's defense is a fabricated afterthought, unsupported by evidence. The sentence is proportionate, and the appeal lacks merit, warranting dismissal.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
12. Before analyzing the grounds, it is pertinent to outline the legal framework governing Section 354 IPC and appellate review under Section 374 Cr.P.C.:
13. Section 354 IPC punishes the use of criminal force or assault on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana (2004) 4 SCC 379, para 10, elucidated:
"Essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC are that the person assaulted must be a woman, and the accused must have used criminal force on her intending thereby to outrage her modesty. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her dress coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman, and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not defined in IPC. The Shorter DLND010031182021 Page 7 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as follows:
"Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lowe; Shame-fast; Scrupulously chast."
Modesty can be described as the quality of being modest; and in relation to woman, "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct." It is the reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions. As observed by Justice Patterson in Rex v. James Llyod (1876) 7 C&P 817."
14.As an appellate court the evidence needs to be re appreciated, however, interference is required only if the trial court's findings are perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to the record. Keeping this principle in mind the court proceeds to analyze the grounds of appeal.
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS
15.The grounds are clubbed thematically for clarity and comprehensive adjudication.
Alleged Errors in Evidence Appreciation, Reliance on Conjectures, Failure to Prove Motive/Outrage, and Dependence on Interested Witnesses a. The appellant contends that the trial court erred grossly, relied on conjectures, failed to establish motive or the element of outraging modesty, and based conviction on false testimony from interested witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2).
b. The trial court's judgment (paras 10-11) duly evaluates PW-1's testimony, describing the appellant's act of catching her from behind, attempting to close in, and touching her cheek, corroborated by her immediate complaint (Ex. PW1/A) and Section 164 statement (Ex. PW1/C). PW-2's testimony aligns, confirming the appellant's call to ascertain his absence and the complainant's distress call. The trial court DLND010031182021 Page 8 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri rejected the appellant's defense as improbable, noting the meter's external location (impugned judgment, para 11). This Court finds the trial court's approach evidence-driven, not conjectural. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC 550, while convicting the accused therein observed: "Although we find that there are certain contradictions and omissions in her testimony, but such omissions and contradictions are minor and on material aspects, her evidence is consistent. The prosecutrix being illiterate and rustic young woman, some contradictions and omissions are natural as her recollection, observance, memory and narration of chain of events may not be precise. " Here, the evidence is cogent and consistent. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly relied upon the testimony of PW1.
c. Motive/Intent: The appellant's claim that motive was not established is misconceived. Section 354 IPC focuses on intent, inferred from the act, not a separate motive. The motive is clear from the act of the accused, as established from the evidence of the complainant. The appellant's entry into the complainant's residence, knowing her husband was absent (confirmed by his call to PW-2), and his physical actions demonstrate intent and motive. The trial court rightly inferred this in para 10 of the impugned judgment.
d. Outrage Modesty: The complainant's testimony details physical contact (catching from behind, touching cheek, unequivocally aimed at her dignity. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, para 16, Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "From the above dictionary meaning of `modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this DLND010031182021 Page 9 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri Court in Major Singh's case (supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. When the above test is applied in the present case, keeping in view the total fact situation, it cannot but be held that the alleged act of Mr. Gill in slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior amounted to `outraging of her modesty' for it was not only an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency but also an affront to the dignity of the lady - "sexual overtones" "
16. The conduct of the appellant clearly falls within the ambit of Section 354 IPC and Ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted him for the said offence.
17. The trial court's finding that these acts constitute outraging modesty is sound and backed by the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.
18. Interested Witnesses: PW-1 (victim) and PW-2 (her husband) are natural witnesses, not "interested" in the sense of having ulterior motives. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752, para 7, stated:
"5. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."DLND010031182021 Page 10 of 14
Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri
19. There is no evidence of enmity or falsity. The appellant admitted 1 knowing PW- 2, negating claims of police implication. PW-1's prompt reporting and consistent statements in the complaint and 164 Cr.P.C. enhance her credibility.
20. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned judgment on the grounds that there was no motive or that PW-1 & PW-2 are interested witnesses lack substance, as the trial court's findings are rooted in evidence, not conjecture. Non-Consideration of Statements, Contradictions Between PW-1 and PW-2, Complainant's Role in Arrest, and Inconsistencies in Assault Description
21. The appellant argues that the trial court ignored PW-1's statement, failed to note PW-2's reference to "misbehavior" rather than outrage, overlooked contradictions between PW-1 and PW-2, did not consider the complainant's failure to depose about arrest, and failed to address inconsistencies in PW-1's assault description.
22. Non-Consideration of PW-1's Statement: The trial court explicitly relied on PW- 1's testimony (impugned judgment, para 10), detailing the assault and corroborating documents (Ex. PW1/A, PW1/C). The complainant's account of being caught from behind and touched inappropriately was found consistent and credible by Ld. Trial Court.
23. PW-2's reference to "Misbehavior" : PW-2 testified that his wife reported the appellant's "misbehavior"2 over the phone, narrating the full incident upon his return. Minor variations in describing the same act do not discredit testimony if the core remains consistent. The core event--unlawful entry and holding the complainant, remain consistent throughout the testimony of the complainant and 1 In his testimony as DW-1.
2 "..Suresh had misbehaved with her in house".
DLND010031182021 Page 11 of 14Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri also her husband. The omission of the phrase "outrage of modesty" in PW-2's initial call is a minor variance, not undermining the prosecution's case.
24. Contradictions Between PW-1 and PW-2 : No material contradictions exist in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. Minor contradiction of time of about 15 minutes cannot be said to be sufficient to discard the consistent testimonies of the witnesses. PW-1, as the victim, provided a firsthand account of the assault, while PW-2, absent during the incident, testified to the appellant's call, his wife's distress, and subsequent events. Their testimonies align on the timeline and key facts. Minor discrepancies not affecting the core narrative are irrelevant.
25. Complainant's Role in Arrest : The appellant's claim that the complainant did not state he was arrested at her instance is immaterial, for the reason that even the accused has admitted that he had gone to the house of the complainant on that day. Though there is a contradiction as regards the fact that the arrest memo bears the signature of PW-1 and the arrest was made at PS Chanakyapuri, whereas PW-1 stated that she had never visited the Police Station, however, the said contradiction with respect to investigation do not go to the root of the case in the facts of the present case, where the presence of the accused at the house of the complainant at the stated time is not disputed. In his deposition as DW-1 the accused has not denied that he entered the house of PW-1 at the date and time mentioned by complainant/PW-1. Therefore, inconsistency as regards whether arrest was made in presence of PW1 do not go to the root of the case.
26. Inconsistencies in Assault Description : The appellant highlights PW-1's description of being "caught from behind" versus "trying to close in." These are not contradictory but describe a continuous act of assault. PW-1's testimony details a sequence: catching, closing in, and touching her cheek. Descriptive DLND010031182021 Page 12 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri variations in narrating a single incident do not amount to contradiction unless they alter the substance. The substance, i.e. unwanted physical contact with intent to outrage modesty, remains intact throughout the testimony of PW-1, corroborated by the contents of the complaint and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-1's cross-examination did not shake her core narrative. In Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283, Hon'ble Apex Court held: "It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence."
27. In the case of Sallamuddin Vs. State, Crl. A. No.954/2012 decided on 04.03.2013,, no statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and material contradictions were found in her deposition as mentioned in para-5 of the judgment, due to which, the accused therein was acquitted. However, in the present case, the stand of the prosecutrix has been consistent throughout as she has reiterated the allegations made against the appellant in her complaint, in statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her deposition before the Court.
28. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused, in para-16, it was observations that there was "total variation in her version from what was stated in the complaint and what was deposed before the Court during trial". The observations in the said case do not apply to the present proceedings, where the testimony of the prosecutrix has remained consistent throughout. Lastly, in the judgment of State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena (2013) 4 SCC 206, it was observed in the 2nd last paragraph that the statement of prosecutrix was not at all reliable, or in other words wholly unreliable and as such, the accused was acquitted in the said case. None of the aforesaid three judgments cited by the appellant come to the rescue of the DLND010031182021 Page 13 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri appellant, who has suffered conviction u/s.354 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 07.12.2020.
29. The grounds raised in the appeal challenging the judgment of conviction are found to be devoid of merits. No reason has comeforth as to why would complainant / PW1 and PW2 would falsely implicate the accused. The defence taken by the accused that the complainant asked her to stop the electricity meter and fix direct line bypassing the elctricity meter seems to be an afterthought and is not believable. It may be noted that PW2 in his cross-examination stated that he is in a government job, from which the income of the family of the complainant can be inferred and it can be concluded that there was no occasion of complainant to ask for tampering of meter and even if asked for, mere denial by appellant could not be said to be sufficient motive to falsely implicate him that too in a case u/s.354 IPC.
ANALYSIS OF SENTENCE
30. The appellant challenges the sentence as excessive. The trial court imposed one year's simple imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/- fine, considering the offense's gravity. However, the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the mitigating circumstances i.e. age of the appellant, his clean antecedents and in view of fact that the accused has faced this trial for more than 7 years at the time of conviction, in the opinion of the Court, the approach of the Court should be reformative rather than being deterrant in the present situation, where the appellant has no previous involvement prior to the date of incident and subsequent involvement even thereafter till date. As on date the appellant has suffered the rigors of trial in appeal for the last 11 years and as such, in the opinion of the Court, it would serve the end of justice, if the appellant is DLND010031182021 Page 14 of 14 Cr Appeal / 47/21 Suresh Vs. State & Anr.
FIR No.147/14, U/s.354 IPC, PS : Chanakya Puri sentenced to the period already undergone. However, the order on sentenced as far as imposition of fine is concerned, is maintained. The convict is directed to deposit the fine in the Trial Court within 15 days, failing which, the Trial Court may proceed to execute the sentence so modified by this order. CONCLUSION
31. This Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence, including witness testimonies, exhibits, and the impugned orders. The trial court's findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the record, as required for interference in an Appeal. The prosecution, through PW-1 and PW-2's consistent, credible testimonies, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offense under Section 354 IPC by using criminal force with intent to outrage the complainant's modesty. The appellant's defense of meter tampering is uncorroborated and implausible, given the meter's location at the wall outside the main gate.
32. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed against the judgment of conviction. The conviction of appellant under Section 354 IPC is upheld. However, taking into consideration mitigating circumstances, sentence of one year's simple imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant is given benefit u/s.428 Cr.P.C. and is directed to deposit the fine in the Trial Court within 15 days, failing which, the Trial Court may proceed to execute the sentence so modified by this order.
33. Copy of this order be sent to Ld.Trial Court and be also given to both the parties.
34. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 31st of July 2025 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts
Delhi/31.07.2025