Delhi District Court
State vs Bagga Singh on 29 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.: 415/2016
PS.: Kotwali
u/S.: 354/354A/354C/354D/328/509/506 IPC
State Vs. Bagga Singh
(a) SC Case No. 29113/2016
(b) CNR No. DLCT01-017993-2016
(c) Date of commission of From July 2015 to 02.07.2016
offence (several instances) at Quarter No.
6, Staff Quarter, Gurudwara
Sisganj Sahib, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.
(d) Name of the Smt. 'BK1', W/o. 'DS', R/o.
complainant 'XYZ'.
(e) Name of the accused Bagga Singh, S/o. Shri. Swaran
person(s), parentage Singh, R/o. Vill. Dhariwal, PS.
and residence Patti, Dist. Taran Taran, Punjab.
(f) Plea of the accused Not guilty
persons
(g) Final Order The accused is convicted of the
offences under Sections 354A,
506 and 509 IPC. However, the
accused is acquitted of charges
under Sections 328, 354 and
354D IPC.
(h) Date of institution of 18.11.2016
case
(i) Date when judgment 05.07.2025
was reserved
(j) Date when judgment 29.08.2025
was pronounced
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2016, while the concerned police official/SI was present in 1 Identities of the complainant/prosecutrix as well as that of her other family/related members, who appeared as PWs have, deliberately been withheld in view of the decisions in; Birbal Kumar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3464; X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 279; and Saleem v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 HCC (Del) 365: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2190.SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 1 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:01 +0530 the police station, the complainant, Smt. 'BK' ( hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant/prosecutrix/victim'), reached there and tendered her complaint. Notably, under her complaint, the complainant inter alia proclaimed that she was working at the post of sewadaar (सेवादार), at the relevant point in time at Gurudwara Sisganj Sahib, Chandni Chowk. Further, as per the complainant, owing to her said designation/post in the said Gurudwara, she was allotted a residential quarter bearing no. 6, Gurudwara Sisganj Sahib, ever since her marriage (मुझे सेवादारनी का पद दिया गया था और में क्वाटर नं०-6, गुरूद्वारा शीशगंज में मेरी शादी के बाद से ही रह रही हूँ।).
Correspondingly, the complainant asserted under her complainant that her husband left for heavenly abode 09 (nine) years prior thereto and ever since his demise, she was working as sewadaar at Gurudwara Sisganj Sahib for the sustenance and take care of her children (मेरे पति की मृत्यु करीब 9 साल पहले हो गई थी। मैं तभी से अपने बच्चो के पालन पोषण के लिए शीशगंज गुरूद्वारा में अपनी पति की जगह कार्य कर रही हूँ।). In her complaint, the complainant further avowed that the accused, Bagga Singh, who was designated as jathedar (जत्थेदार) at Gurudwara Sisganj Sahib also used to reside with his family in the staff quarters. Correspondingly, as per the complainant, the accused used to often enquire about her family's well-being, as a neighbour and the complainant used to sometimes, ask him/the accused to get her some basic amenities ( मेरे स्टाफ क्वार्टर की बिल्डिंग में जत्थेदार बग्गा सिंह अपने परिवार के साथ रहता था जो मेरे पति की मृत्यु के बाद पडोसी के नाते हाल चाल पुछ लिया करता था। और कभी-कभी जरूरत का समान भी मगवा लेती थी।).
Concomitantly, the complainant proclaimed that the accused used to designate duties to her, as her senior and that 02-03 years prior SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 2 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:32:05 +0530 to her said declaration, the complainant and the accused started frequent interaction with each other, including through telephonic mode, in relation to their employment/work (जत्थेदार बग्गा सिंह मेरी डियुटी लगाता था क्योकि यह मेरा सीनियर था। 2-3 साल पहले काम की वजह से बग्गा सिंह से मेरी बात-चीत ज्यादा होने लगी और मेरी डियुटी एक साथ होने के कारण हमारी फोन पर भी बात चीत होने लगी). However, it is the case of the complainant that the accused, soon enough, started harassing her by calling her at odd hours (धीरे -धीरे बग्गा सिंह मुझे बेवजय बेवक्त फ़ोन करके तंग करने लगा). As per the complainant, she raised objection to the same, however, the accused did not deter.
2. Markedly, in the aforesaid complaint/statement, the complainant further asserted that somewhere in the month of July, 2015, when her children were in their School, the accused reached at complainant's residence, i.e., quarter no. 6, staff quarter, Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib. As per the complainant, she was resting at that point in time, after having consumed medicine, as she was not feeling well. Upon seeing the complainant, the accused enquired the complainant of her well-being/health and offered to get her cold-drink. Consequently, as per the complainant, the accused offered her 'Limca'/cold drink, to consume. The complaint further chronicles that upon consumption of the said cold drink, the complainant felt drowsy and she fainted, whilst, the appellant was present in her/complainant's house, on her bed at that point in time (जिसको पीने के बाद मुझे नीन्द आने लगी और और बग्गा सिंह वही बिस्तर पर बैठा रहा और बग्गा सिंह को देखते-देखते में बेहोश हो गई।). As per the complainant, when regained her senses, she saw that her daughter, 'J' had awoken her (जब मेरी आँ ख खुली तो मैने देखा मेरी बेटी 'ज' ने SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 3 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:32:09 +0530 मुझे उठाया है।). As per the complainant, her children used to return from their School at around 02:00 p.m. Correspondingly, it is the case of the complainant that on the say day, she was wearing ladies long T-shirt of black colour and black and white colour pyjama (उस दिन मैं ने काले रंग की लेडीज लॉग टी-शर्ट और काला और वाईट कलर का पजागा पहना हु आ था।). The complainant further proclaimed that on the occasion of Diwali in the previous year (October, 2015), the accused showed her, her half-naked images on his/accused's mobile phone in which, she was wearing the same black T-shirt (इसके बाद करीब पिछले दिवाली (अक्टू बर 15) से बग्गा सिह ने मुझे अपने मोबाईल में मेरी को अधी नगीं फोटो दिखाई जिसमें मैंने यहीं काली टी-शर्ट पहन रखी थी). Upon seeing them, the complainant realized that the accused had clicked/taken her said semi-naked photographs, after he/accused had made her consume some intoxicating substance in cold-drink. Further, as per the complainant, the accused threatened her by showing the said photographs, to get physical/make physical relation with her, failing which, he proclaimed that he would circulate the said photographs on WhatsApp (जिन्हें दिखाकर बग्गा सिंह मुझे धमकी देने लगा कि या तो मेरे साथ सो (शरीरुक सबंध) नही तो मैं तेरी यह फोटो व्हाट्सएप पर लोगों को भेज हुँगा।).
Correspondingly, as per the complainant, when she refused to submit to accused's demands, the accused started harassing, molesting and using obscene language against her on regular basis (जब मैंने ऐसे करने से मना कर दिया ती बग्गा सिंह मुझे आते-जाते तंग करने लगा। और मुझे अके ला पाकर मेरे साथ छेडछाड करने लगा। और अशलील वाते बोलने लगा।). The complainant further asserted that somewhere in the month of January, 2016, while finding her alone, the accused attempted to misbehave with her, however, she was able to deflect his endeavours. However, upon this, while leaving the spot, the SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 4 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:13 +0530 accused threatened her/the complainant that he would share her said photographs/semi-naked photographs on WhatsApp as well as malign her (एक दिन जनबरी महीने 2016 में बग्गा सिंह ने मुझे अके ला पाकर मेरे घर में गलत नीयत से मेरे साथ जोर-जबरदस्ती करने की कोशिश की लेकिन मैने बग्गा सिंह को भगा दिया जिसके बाद बग्गा सिंह ने जाते जाते मुझे धमकी दी कि मैं तेरे फोटो अब मैं व्हाट्सएप में डाल दूंगा और तुझे बदनाम कर दूंगा।). Subsequently, as per the complainant, she made a complaint regarding the actions of the accused to Gurudwara Rakabganj Committee in the year 2016, however, to no avail (जिसके बाद मैने बग्गा सिंह के खिलाफ 2016 में गुरुद्वारा रकाब गंज कमेटी को भी की लेकिन मेरी कोई सुनवाई नहीं हुई।). Correspondingly, as per the complainant, she was informed by the accused that he had put/shared her said photographs on WhatsApp and that she was free to do whatever she desired.
REGISTRATION OF FIR AND INVESTIGATION:
3. Notably, under the aforenoted facts and circumstances as well as on the basis of the complainant's complaint, the concerned police official/SI Seema prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to the concerned Duty Officer/DO, for the registration of FIR. Consequently, the present FIR for the offences under Sections 354/354A/354D/328/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), came to be registered at PS. Kotwali and investigation ensued. Notably, during the course of investigation, the complainant was taken to a Counsellor and site plan of the incident spot was prepared. Further, statements of various persons/witnesses were recorded, besides the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code') was got recorded by the concerned Ld. MM.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 5 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:17 +0530
Concomitantly, the accused was apprehended and arrested. Notably, during the course of ensuing investigation, the accused is asserted to have disclosed that he had thrown/disposed of the bottle of aforenoted cold drink in dustbin, which could not be recovered (मुल्जिम ने दरियामत पर बतलाया कि उसने कोल्ड ड्रि न्कं की बोतल को कु छेदान में फै क दिया था जिसकी बरामदगी नहीं हो सकी।). However, the accused's mobile phone as well as one ticket was recovered from the possession of the accused. Correspondingly, the said mobile phone is asserted to have been sent for its forensic analysis. Apposite here to reproduce the relevant extracts from the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded by the Ld. MM, Central, Tis Hazari Court on 11.07.2016, as under;
"...Madam मेरे दो बच्चे है। 9 साल पहले मेरे पति गुजर गए। उसके बाद से मे Gurudwara Sheeshganj Sahib में नौकरी कर रहा हूँ। मैं अपने बच्चों के साथ वहीं Quarter में रहती हूँ। मेरे senior है जिनका नाम Bagga Singh है। हमारा Quarter 1st floor पर है , और Bagga Singh का 3rd floor पर है। पड़ोसी होने की वजह से बात- चीत होती थी। पर फिर Bagga Singh on काफ़ी phone आने लगे। मेरे बच्चों को भी लगता था कि वो बार-बार phone क्यों करता है। पर मेरे Senior है, इसलिए मैं बात करती थी। पर फिर मैंने Bagga Singh को phone करने से मना किया । पर वो माना नहीं। मैने उनका number block list भी किया।
Bagga Singh घर पर आकर मेरे साथ जबरदस्ती करने की कोशिश करी थी January 2016 में । पिछले साल July मे, मैं काम पर नहीं गई थी तबियत खराब होने की वजह से। उस दिन Bagga Singh घर पर आया । उसने कहा कि वो cold drink ले कर आएगा ताकि मुझे तबीयत में आराम मिलें । जब मैं ने cold drink पी ली। फिर दो बजे मेरी बेटी school से आई और मुझे उठाया ।
October के महीने में Bagga Singh ने मुझे मेरी photo दिखायी जिसमे मेरा Kurta सीने से उपर तक यानि गले तक उठा रखा था और उसने कहा कि वो सारी photos WhatsApp पर डाल देगा अगर मैने उसके साथ शारीरिक संबंध नहीं बनाए। मुझे तब realise हु आ कि थे उसी दिन के photo थे, जब उसने मुझे cold drink पिलाई थी। Cold drink में कु छ मिलाकर पिलायी थी, जिससे मुझे होश नहीं रहा और फिर Bagga Singh ने मेरी अशलील photo ली। मैं Bagga singh की बातो से blackmail नहीं हु ई।
February 2016 में मुझे लोगों से पता चला कि Bagga SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 6 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:21 +0530 Singh ने मेरी photo WhatsApp पर डाल दी थी। मैने committee मे complaint डाली। पर पता नहीं कि Bagga Singh ने committer में क्या कहा, मुझे ही suspend कर दिया गया और Quarter खाली करने को कहा गया। Madam, मेरे साथ Bagga Singh ने बहु त गलत है। उसको सजा मिलनी चाहिए। Madam, मैं उस दिन July में , जब मेरो बेटी ने मुझे आकर उठाया था, उसके बाद मैं Duty पर गई थी। मैं ने वहाँ बताया था कि तबीयत खराब होने की वजह से Late आयी थी में ।..."
(Emphasis supplied) FILING OF CHARGESHEET/SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGESHEET AND COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS:
4. Markedly, upon conclusion of aforenoted investigation in the instant case, chargesheet was filed by the concerned IO before Ld. MM-08, Central, Tis Hazari Courts under Sections 354/354A/354C/354D/328/506/509 IPC on 22.09.2016.
Subsequently, cognizance of offence(s), as specified under the chargesheet was taken by Ld. MM, Central, Tis Hazari Courts. Correspondingly, upon conclusion/compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM-08 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 08.11.2016, passed an order of committal of the present case before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, routed via Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. Pertinent to further note that during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, supplementary chargesheet, containing the FSL report, came to be filed by the concerned police official on 28.11.2020.
CHARGE FRAMING:
5. Subsequently, on receipt of aforenoted FSL report, pursuant to repeated endeavours of the Ld. Predecessor Judge, and upon arguments on charge, having been addressed by/on behalf of the accused and State, Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 23.05.2022, directed framing of charges under Sections 328, 354, SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 7 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:32:24 +0530 354A, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC against the accused. Notably, the relevant extract(s) of the said order of charge is reproduced as under;
"...On consideration of charge-sheet, statement of the complainant and FSL report, there is sufficient material disclosing prima facie commission of offences punishable under Section 328, 354A, 354, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC. Charges under Section 328, 354A, 354, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC are framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial..."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Further, it is apposite to reproduce the charges, framed against the accused on 23.05.2022, by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, pursuant to the aforesaid order, as under;
"...I, ***, Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central), Tis Hazarı Courts, Delhi, do hereby charge you accused, namely, Bagga Singh S/o Sh Swaran Singh Rio Village Dhariwal, PS Patti, Distt. Tarn Taran, Punjab, as under:
Firstly, on one day in July 2015 in Quarter No. 6, Staff Quarter, Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib, Chandni Chowk. Delhi-110006, you administered cold drink 'Limca' mixed with intoxicating substance to the complainant with intent to take obscene pictures of the complainant without her consent or to facilitate the commission of the said offence and as such, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 within my cognizance. Secondly, on the day of Deepawali in October, 2015 in Quarter No. 6. Staff Quarter, Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib, Chandni Chowk. Delhi-110006, you have shown two obscene pictures to the complainant and threatened her to have physical relation with her on the pretext that you would send the said obscene pictures of the complainant to other people via WhatsApp and thereafter, you started molesting her and as such, you have committed an offence under Section 354A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on a day in the month of January, 2016 in Quarter No. 6. Staff Quarter, Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, you used criminal force to outrage modesty of the complainant and as such, you have committed an offence under SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 8 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:28 +0530 Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 within my cognizance.
Fourthly, since 2-3 years before 02.07.2016, you used to make mobile calls to the complainant despite a clear indication of disinterest by her and as such, you have committed an offence under Section 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 within my cognizance. Fifthly, one day in the month of January, 2016 in Quarter No. 6, Staff Quarter, Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, you threatened to disrepute the complainant by forwarding her obscene pictures of WhatsApp and as such, you have committed an offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 within my cognizance. Sixthly, since July, 2015 to 02.07.2016, you intended to insult modesty of the complainant, uttered obscene words or exhibited obscene pictures intending that such word or object shall be heard and seen by the complainant and intruded her privacy and as such, you have committed an offence under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 within my cognizance.
Now I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid charges..."
(Emphasis supplied) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
7. Notably, during the course of proceedings, prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses/prosecution witnesses, who deposed in their respective testimonies, regarding the following;
7.1. PW-1/HC Sachin Kumar, Duty Officer, who deposed regarding the handing over of the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO/W/SI Seema.
7.2. PW-2/'BK', the complainant/prosecutrix, who inter alia deposed regarding the incident in question and the role of the accused.
7.3. PW-3/HC Pradeep Bharadwaj, MHC(M), who deposed regarding the custody/safe custody of the case property in the malkhana, as well as produced the same during trial.SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 9 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:32:31 +0530 7.4. PW-4/HC Naushad Ali, Constable, who inter alia testified regarding the collection of the case property from the malkhana and deposit of same at FSL Rohini. 7.5. PW-5/ASI Rakesh Kumar, Head Constable, who deposed regarding the arrest, search and recovery proceedings from the accused.
7.6. PW-6/Yashpal Singh, working in Vigilance Department of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee at the relevant point in time and inter alia testified regarding the receipt of complaint from complainant and conducting necessary proceedings on the said complaint.
7.7. PW-7/SI (Retd.) Manohar Lal, who deposed regarding the registration of instant FIR, on receipt of rukka from SI Seema.
7.8. PW-8/Mr. Vikas Kumar, JFACE, CFD, FSL Rohini, who deposed regarding the inspection of case property/mobile phone, as FSL expert.
7.9. PW-9/SI Seema, the investigating officer/IO in the instant case, who inter alia testified regarding the investigation in the present case.
7.10. PW-10/ASI Brijesh Kumar, who deposed regarding the preparation and filing of supplementary chargesheet in the present case.
7.11. Notably, all the aforenoted prosecution witnesses were thoroughly examined by/on behalf of the accused by his Ld. Counsel. Here, it is pertinent to note that during the course of trial, the accused admitted the recording of statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Ld. MM (NI Act)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Court on 11.07.2016, without admitting the contents thereof, in terms of the provisions under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 10 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:36 +0530 18.03.2023 as Ex. PW2/B (Colly.). Consequently, the Ld. Predecessor Judge dropped/dispensed with the recording of testimony/evidence of the Ld. MM (NI Act)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Court on the same day, i.e., on 18.03.2023, vide a separate order.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED:
8. Apposite to note here that upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused, in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 23.04.2025, wherein the accused inter alia denied his involvement in the present case and proclaimed that he was falsely implicated.
Notably, under his said statement, the accused inter alia asserted that he was as jatthedar in Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib and the complainant was also working there as sewadar. Correspondingly, as per the accused, in the year 2015, he received several verbal complaints against the complainant that she used to extort money from the local vendors, sitting outside the Gurudwara on regular basis. Consequently, as per the accused, he shifted the complainant from her post and placed her in the duty to look after the langar hall. Ergo, it was avowed that from that day onwards, the complainant developed enmity and falsely implicated/framed him/the accused in the instant case. Pertinent to reproduce the relevant extracts from the said statement of accused, Bagga Singh, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 23.04.2025, as under;
"...Q. 4: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Ms. 'BK' has deposed that and one day in July, 2015, she/PW-2 were not well and taking rest in her/PW-2's house after taking medicine and after sending her children to school. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, you/the accused came to her/PW-2's house on that day for asking about her well-being. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, you/the accused asked her/PW-2 to have cold drink so that she/PW-2 could feel better and you/the accused went out of her SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 11 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:41 +0530 house and returned after a while with a cold drink. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
Q. 5: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Ms. 'BK' has deposed that you/the accused, offered the cold drink to her/PW-2 and she consumed it. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, soon thereafter, she/PW-2 started becoming unconscious/under the influence of sleep. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, when she was consuming the cold drink, you/accused Bagga Singh were also sitting there. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, it was around 10.00-11.00 a.m. when the said incident happened. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, when she regained consciousness, she found that her children had already returned from School. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, her children used to return at about 02.00 p.m. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, she was wearing black colour T-shirt and white colour lower on that day. What do you have to say?
Answer: I do not know.
Q. 6: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Ms. 'BK' has deposed that in the month of October, 2015, you accused showed her/PW-2, her/PW-2's two obscene photographs in your mobile phone. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, in those photographs, she was seen wearing the same clothes, as aforementioned. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, on seeing the same, she realized that you/the accused might have taken those photographs on the aforesaid day, when she got unconscious after consuming cold drink, brought by you. What do you have to say?
Answer: I denied all the allegations levelled upon me by PW-2.
Q. 7: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Ms. 'BK' has deposed that you/the accused threatened her/PW-2 that she should make physical relations with you/the accused, else you would forward her/PW-2's abovesaid photographs to her known persons. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, she flatly refused and after that you/the accused started harassing her. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, you/the accused used to trouble her whenever she came out of her house and also used to call her on her mobile phone, unnecessarily and at odd times as well. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, you/the accused also used to pass obscene comments on her. What do you have to say?SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 12 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.08.29
16:32:45
+0530
Answer: It is incorrect.
Q. 8: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Ms. 'BK' has deposed that one day in January, 2016, you/the accused came to her/PW-2's house when she was alone and you/the accused started misbehaving with her (jor jabardasti karne ki koshish karne lga). It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, when she raised an alarm, you went away from her house. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, after the said incident, you/the accused used to threaten her/PW-2 to defame her by circulating her abovesaid obscene photographs. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, you/the accused also told her that you had actually circulated her photographs. What do you have to say?
Answer: I denied all the allegations levelled upon me by PW-2.
Q. 9: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Ms. 'BK' has deposed that she made a complaint in the year 2016 to Gurudwara Committee but the Committee suspended both her and you/the accused from the employment of Gurudwara. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, in July, 2016, she approached the police officials of PS Kotwali, where the police officials directed her to present a written complaint and she, accordingly, wrote her complaint at the PS itself. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is a matter of record.
*** *** *** Q. 45: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: I was working as a jatthedar in Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib and the complainant Ms. B*** K*** was also working there as a sewadar in the said gurudwara. In the year 2015, I received many verbal complaints against the complainant B*** K*** that she being sewadar used to extort money from the local vendors, sitting outside the gurudwara premises on regular basis. So, being at the capacity of jatthedar, I shifted her from there and appointed her duty to look after the langer hall of the gurudwara. From that day onwards, she kept enmity upon me and because of this, B*** K*** framed me in the present false case.
Q. 46: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: They are interested witnesses. Q. 47: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
Answer: No. Q. 48: Do you want to say anything else?
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 13 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:32:49 +0530
Answer: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant..."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. As aforenoted, the accused, in his statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., opted not to lead any evidence/defence evidence in support of his assertion, leading to the closure of defence evidence. Thereupon, arguments were addressed in the instant case by/on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. CONTENTIONS OF STATE:
10. Ld. Addl. PP for the State outrightly submitted that from the material placed on record and, in particular, from the testimony of PW-2/complainant, the role, complicity as well as active involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences alleged against him stands proved. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the complainant/PW-2, in her testimony, has specifically deposed about the commission of incident by the accused, besides Ld. Addl. PP for the State asserted that the complainant has been consistent in her said deposition as well as her earlier assertions before the police officials and Ld. MM. Further, as per Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the complainant has withstood rigors of cross-examination on behalf of the accused wherein, nothing has come forth to belie her consistent version. In this regard, Ld. Addl. PP for the State vehemently asserted/reiterated that despite an extensive and though cross examination of the said witness/complainant, the defence has not been able to rebut the sterling testimony of the complainant, which clearly indicates towards the only inference of guilt of the accused. Further, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the accused, despite being afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, deliberately opted SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 14 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:32:53 +0530 not to produce any evidence/witness in the support of his assertion/defence. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the law is settled that in the cases of sexual offence, there is hardly any corroborative witnesses and that the superior courts have persistently avowed that to ask for corroboration in such cases, where the testimony of the witness/complainant is of sterling nature is to add to the misery of such victim. In the instant case, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the testimony of the prosecutrix has been sterling nature and is duly corroborated in its material particulars by the testimonies of PW-6/Mr. Yashpal Singh and PW-8/Mr. Vikas Kumar. Correspondingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State asserted that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has merely/blatantly denied the allegations against him without offering any explanation to his conduct, disentitling him to claim any indulgence in the present case. On the contrary, the prosecutrix has been consistent in her version, unambiguously pointing out to the only inference of the accused's guilt in the present case. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State reiterated that from the material, evidence and documents, placed on record the charges levelled against the accused stand duly proved, making him liable for the offences/charges levelled against him. CONTENTIONS OF DEFENCE:
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that from the material placed on record, the ingredients of no offence, leave aside the offences/charges under Sections 328/354/354A/354D/506/509 IPC, are made out against the accused in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that there are material improvements, contradictions and variations in the statements of various prosecution witnesses, including that of the complainant/prosecutrix/PW-2, belying their SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 15 of 73 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:33:05 +0530 allegations against the accused. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW-2/complainant, in her deposition, has repeatedly changed her version about the alleged occurrence, besides made material improvements, rendering her unreliable and unworthy of credence. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, there are no other witnesses/eyewitness to the alleged incident in question or attributing specific role qua the accused. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, there is clear and strong reason on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in the present case, considering the grudge developed in her mind owing to the accused transferring her from the post of sewadar. In this regard, Ld. Counsel fervently reiterated that the prosecutrix has not even iterated the true and correct facts in the present case and has even failed to disclose that the instant case was initiated as a vindictive exercise on the part of the complainant against the accused's action of transferring/shifting her duty as sewadar to the langar hall in the Gurudwara. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, even the basic ingredients of the allegations levelled/charges framed against the accused are not made out/established against the accused in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to establish the administration of any intoxicating substance by the accused to the complainant, besides nowhere in her deposition before this Court, the prosecutrix has deposed about her being administered any such intoxicating substance in 'Limca'. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, no forensic/medical evidence has been placed on record to corroborate the charges under Section 328 IPC in the instant case. 11.1. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that even the ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are not established in the instant case, besides no witness has been brought SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 16 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:33:10 +0530 on record to corroborate the version put forth by the complainant. In this regard, Ld. Counsel submitted that though it is the version of the prosecutrix that when the accused misbehaved with her, she raised an alarm, however, the complainant has not mentioned that after raising alarm whether any of the neighbours came to her rescue at that said point in time. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the quarter, which was in the occupation of the complainant, is a one room premise and in close proximity to other similarly located quarters and had any alarm been raised by the complainant, the neighbouring occupants would have gathered at the spot. However, since no such person has been produced as witness before this Court, the version put forth by the prosecutrix appears to be quite implausible. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there are material improvements in so far as the aspect of the accused showing obscene pictures to the complainant and asking for sexual favour is concerned. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, though there are allegations of commission of offence under Section 354D IPC on the complainant's assertion that the accused used to repeatedly make mobile calls to her despite a clear indication of disinterest by her, however, no evidence in this regard has been placed on record. In this regard, Ld. Counsel submitted that no such call detail records/CDRs have been placed on record of this Court by the prosecution to corroborate the said allegations. Ld. Counsel further submitted that though the complainant further asserted that in the month of January 2016, the accused threatened to disrepute her by forwarding her obscene pictures on WhatsApp, however, again in the complainant's initial complaint made to the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, there are no allegations of the similar nature. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, the complainant hatched a conspiracy and levelled false SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 17 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:33:15 +0530 allegations against the accused by probably misusing the accused's cell phone solely for the purposes of exploiting the accused physically, emotionally and economically. Even otherwise, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that from perusal of the photographs placed on record, it is observed that some portion of the face of the complainant is covered with the complainant's own hand and had the accused intended to exploit the complainant, he would have taken clear photographs where the face of the complainant would have been clearly visible. Further, it was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the investigation in the present case has not been properly conducted as neither any endeavour made to join independent witnesses nor any attempts made to retrieve any CCTV footage etc. of the vicinity of the alleged place of occurrence. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing submissions, Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused be permitted the benefit of doubt and be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
APPEARANCE:
12. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and that of Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard as well as the record(s), including the testimonies of various witnesses, document(s)/material/evidence placed on record (oral and documentary evidence, including the photographs and CD placed on record of this Court) and the written submissions filed by/on behalf of the accused, thoroughly perused.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
13. Before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it prudent to reproduce the provisions under law/IPC, relevant for the purpose(s) of present adjudication, as under;
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 18 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:33:19 +0530
"328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
*** *** ***
354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
*** *** *** 354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-(1) A man committing any of the following acts-
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
*** *** *** 354-D. Stalking-(1) Any man who- (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 19 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:33:26 +0530 stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
*** *** ***
503. Criminal intimidation-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
*** *** ***
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both..
*** *** ***
509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman-Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 20 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:33:29 +0530 such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine..."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Notably, it is seen from above, in particular, from a conscientious analysis of the provisions under Section 328 IPC, that in order to attract the said provision, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the substance, alleged to be administered to a victim was a poison, or any stupefying/intoxicating substance or unwholesome drug, etc., and that the same was administered by an accused to such victim or the accused caused such victim to take it, with an intention to cause hurt or commit or facilitate commission of an offence or with a knowledge that it may be likely to cause hurt. Ergo, under such circumstances, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was 2, "directly responsible for administering poison, etc., or causing it to be taken by any person, through another. In other words, the accused may accomplish the act by himself or by means of another." In this regard, reference is made to the decision in CBI v. Samson D'Souza, 2019 SCC Online Bom. 1392, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, while iterating the ingredients of the provision under Section 328 IPC observed as under;
"62. In order to prove an offence under Section 328 of IPC the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug which is evident from the Autopsy reports in the case in hand. The prosecution is required to prove that the accused administered such substance to the victim or caused the victim to take such substance and further he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it likely to cause hurt or that the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. All these ingredients are precisely attracted in this case qua respondent no. 1.2
Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala, (1994) 6 SCC 535.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 21 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:33:33 +0530
There is direct, reliable and cogent evidence on record. We shall discuss the autopsy reports and the medical evidence in the subsequent paragraphs."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Markedly, it is quite perspicuous from above that the pivot and fulcrum for attracting culpability under Section 328 IPC is premised on the establishment/proof of the substance being administer to a victim, determined by corroborative evidence, to be poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug. Ergo, it is for this reason that the superior courts have persistently avowed3 that mere oral assertion(s) of victim about the factum of intoxication or use of such substance(s) is/are not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of the offence under Section 328 IPC and that in order to hold an accused guilty for the offence under the said provision, "...the oral assertions ought to be corroborated by other circumstances and evidence..." Here, it is pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Krishna Kant v. State, 2023 SCC Online Del. 1946, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while carrying out an exhaustive analysis of the provisions under Section 328 IPC as well as various judicial precedents governing the field, noted as under;
"18. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mahinder Kumar v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8327, in an appeal, had expressed that it was difficult to uphold the conviction under Section 328 IPC merely on the basis of oral evidence. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted as under...
*** *** ***
19. Similar view was adopted earlier by this Court in Mukesh Chand v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 379, whereby it was held that:
"21. Surprisingly, no chemical report about the "stomach wash" has been proved on record. It is well settled that in order to prove Section 328 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison."...3
Mahinder Kumar v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8327.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 22 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:33:37 +0530
20. In Santosh Kumar v. State, 2008 (4) JCC 2919 also, this Court while stressing upon the importance and relevancy of medical evidence to establish guilt under Section 328 IPC, had held as under:
"...From the above quoted observations of the learned trial Judge it is very much clear that the findings rendered are not sustainable at all because of being conjectural. Simply on the basis of the statement of PW-5 alone it could not be concluded that he had become unconscious because of eating the biscuit or drinking tea offered to him by the accused. There had to be medical evidence to the effect that PW-5 had, in fact, become unconscious because of consuming any drug or intoxicating substance etc. mixed in tea or biscuit..."
*** *** ***
23. To sum up, in the present case, (i) there is no medical evidence to prove that complainant was administered any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug; (ii) the statements of the wife and the mother of complainant were not recorded who had allegedly found the complainant vomiting outside the house at Ballabhgarh; (iii) the concerned doctor was not examined who had medically examined the complainant in Ballabhgarh as he was taken to the hospital for treatment since he was vomiting and he had thought that he had been administered some stupefying substance; (iv) the statement of the owner of juice shop was also not recorded; and (v) it is also not proved as to how the complainant reached his house at Ballabhgarh from Delhi in state of unconsciousness. In such circumstances, the case against the appellant cannot be said to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Unmistakably, it is reiterated in light of the foregoing that in the absence of medical evidence to prove that the victim was administered any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, liability under Section 328 IPC would not arise. In so far the provisions under Section 354 IPC are concerned, it is settled law that in order to attract culpability under the said provision, it is required for the prosecution to prove; (i) commission of criminal assault or use of criminal force on a person, who is a woman; (ii) use of criminal force on such victim SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 23 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:33:41 +0530 by the aggressor/accused; and (iii) use of criminal force upon such a woman with a mens rea (intention or knowledge) to 'outrage her modesty'. In this regard, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the decision in Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 1 SCC 215, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court4, while explicating the basic ingredients of Section 354 IPC, noted as under;
"9. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of Punjab v. Major Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63 : 1967 Cri LJ 1] .) A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under:
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed..."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Analogously, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., MANU/SC/0116/2004, cogitating on the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC and the meaning of the term, 'modesty', remarked as under;
"11. Coming to the question as to whether Section 4 Premiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 10 SCC 81.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 24 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:33:46 +0530
354 of the Act has any application, it is to be noted that the provision makes penal the assault or use of criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are:
(a) That the assault must be on a woman.
(b) That the accused must have used criminal force on her.
(c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
12. 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 saree, 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 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."
*** *** ***
14. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as "freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct". In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.), the meaning of the word 'modesty' is given as "womanly propriety of behavior; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reverse or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions"..."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Pertinent, for the purpose(s) of the present discourse to also make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Major Singh, 1966 SCC Online SC 51, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while confronted with the issue whether a female child of seven-and-a-half months could be said to SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 25 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:33:49 +0530 be possessed of 'modesty' which could be outraged, remarked as under;
"15. I think that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses a modesty capable of being outraged. Whoever uses criminal force to her with intent to outrage her modesty commits an offence punishable under Section 354. 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, as for example, when the accused with a corrupt mind stealthily touches the flesh of a sleeping woman. She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anaesthesia, she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act; nevertheless, the offender is punishable under the section."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Remarkably, in the aforesaid dictate, the Hon'ble Apex Court unambiguously explicated that the sense of modesty in all women is not the same for all and that the same may vary from woman to woman. Nonetheless, considering that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, touching of the victim's body, i.e., breasts, mouth any other body parts, etc., by an accused, without the consent of such a woman/complainant/victim, would indubitably and plainly fall within the four corners of the provisions under Section 354 IPC.
20. In as much as the provisions under Section 354A IPC are concerned, it is noted that the said provision provides for criminality against any man who engages in unwelcome physical contact and advances explicit sexual behavior, demands sexual favors, shows pornography against a woman's will, or makes sexually colored remarks. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in V. Madhusoodhanan v. State of Kerala, Crl. MC No. 9074/2024, dated 22.11.2024: 2024:KER:87901, wherein the Hon'ble Court, SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 26 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:08 +0530 while explicating the basic ingredients and contours of the provisions under Section 354A IPC, noted as under;
"...On reading the penal provision, the same deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. It has been specifically provided that if a man commits an act of physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, the same is an offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC. When a man commits an act and makes a demand or request for sexual favour, the same is an offence under Section 354A(1)(ii) of IPC. Similarly, when a man commits an act showing pornography against the will of a woman, the same also is an offence under Section 354A(1)(iii) of IPC. Coming to Section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC, any man making sexually coloured remarks to a woman is guilty of the offence of sexual harassment..."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Here, this Court further deems it further pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi5 in T. Manikadan v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 404/2016, dated 10.01.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while inter alia explicating the ingredients of offences under Section 354 and 354A IPC and the difference between the said provisions, noted as under;
"9. Thus, when the modesty of a woman is outraged or it is likely to be outraged coupled with an assault or criminal force, Section 354 IPC would be attracted. Though assault can be by mere gesture or preparation intending or knowing that it is likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend use of criminal force. This is an act more than mere physical contact with advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Ingredients of Section 354 IPC would show that the same mandate an actus rea of assault or criminal force with an intention to outrage or likely to outrage the modesty whereas a mere physical contact with advances as noted above would attract Section 354A IPC. Though in certain fact situations there may be cases where there may be an overlap of both Sections 354 and 354A IPC however, there may be cases which may exclusively fall either in Section 354 or Section 5 Amit @ Lalu v. State, Crl. Appeal No. 858/2016, dated 25.05.2017 (DHC).
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 27 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:34:13 +0530
354A IPC. Once an offence falls under Section 354 IPC even if ingredients of Section 354A IPC are satisfied, the accused will be punished for Section 354 IPC the same being more serious in nature as it prescribes the minimum sentence of one year and term for imprisonment which may extend to five years."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Germane for the purposes of present discourse to note that from a perusal of the provisions under Section 354D IPC, it is observed that in order to attract culpability under the said provision, the prosecution is inter alia required to establish6 that a man followed a woman and contacted or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction, repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman. In this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Satyabrata Barik v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC Online Cal. 6948, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the ingredients of the provisions under Section 354D IPC, remarked as under;
"23. At the same time, the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the IPC involves a man as the perpetrator and a woman as victim. To constitute any offence under this Section the man must try to contact a woman against her interest.
24. The essentials of the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the IPC require specific elements to be established for a violation to occur. These elements of Section 354D of the IPC include:-
• Perpetrator's Gender: Stalking must be committed by any man. The offence is gender- specific, meaning it involves a man as the perpetrator and a woman as the victim.
• Unwanted Contact: The man must try to contact or contact a woman against her interest. This element involves any form of communication, be it in person or through electronic means, where the woman has expressed disinterest and the man persists in trying to establish contact.
• Repetition: The act of stalking must exhibit a certain degree of repeatedness. It's not a one-time 6 Jayaprakash P.P. v. Sheeba Revi, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 4904.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 28 of 73
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29
16:34:18
+0530
occurrence but rather involves a pattern of persistent and unwanted attention or contact. This pattern is essential to distinguish stalking from isolated or accidental interactions.
• Absence of Interest: There should be a clear indication of disinterest on the part of the woman. This element is crucial to ensure that the woman's lack of consent or interest is evident and that the man is persisting despite her objections."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC Online Ker. 5334 , while delving into the provisions under Section 354D IPC, inter alia observed as under;
"10. A mere reading of the provision contained in Sec.354D of the IPC would make it clear that one of the prime ingredients to be satisfied is that, the accused man should have followed the woman and should have contacted or attempted to contact the woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, etc. In the instant case the lady de- facto complainant does not have a case that the petitioner has monitored her use of internet, email or any other form of electronic communication. Further that, her admitted allegation is only that the petitioner had taken her photograph in one occasion, without her permission. Thus, it can be seen that a solitary instance as in the instant one cannot be remotely contemplated as stalking as understood in Sec.354D of the IPC. Hence the petitioner is right in contending that the vital ingredients of offence of stalking as per Sec.354D of the IPC are not made out even going through the admitted prosecution allegations."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. In so far as the applicability/culpability under Section 506 IPC is concerned, law is trite that in order to attract the said provision, the prosecution is required to prove that the; (i) accused threatened some person; (ii) such threat must extend to causing any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 29 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:24 +0530 interested; and (iii) the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. Pertinently, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Amulya Kumar Behera v. Nabaghana Behera, 1995 SCC Online Ori. 317 , while explicating the meaning of the word, 'alarm' used under Section 503/506 IPC, noted as under;
"...Therefore, intention must be to cause alarm to the victim and whether he is alarmed or not is really of no consequence. But material has to be brought on record to show that intention was to cause alarm to that person. Here expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in application of Section 506, IPC. The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon mind of person threatened. It is clear that before it can have effect upon his mind it must be either made to him by the person threatening or communicated to him in some way...The threat must be intended to cause alarm from which it follows that, ordinarily, it would be sufficient for that purpose. The degree of such alarm may vary in different cases, but the essential matter is that it is of a nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and take away from his acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. The case where the threat produces an alarm is comparatively a simple one, for all that has then to be proved is that threat was given and that the alarm was due to the threat: but where the threat has not that effect, it involves a question whether it was sufficient to overcome a man of ordinary nerves. The Court may hold it to be an empty boast, too insignificant to call for penal visitation of Section 506. "Intimidate"
according to Webstar's Dictionary means" (1) to make timid, make afraid, overawe; (2) force or deter with threats or violence, cow". Threat referred to in the Section must be a threat communicated or uttered with intention of its being communicated to the person threatened for the purpose of influencing his mind. Question whether threat amounts to a criminal intimidation or not does not depend on norms of individual threatened if it is such a threat as may overcome ordinary free will of a man of common firmness. "Threat" is derived from Anglo-sexam word SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 30 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:29 +0530 "threotou to life", (harass). It is the dicleration of an intention to inflict punishment, loss or pain on another. "Injury" is defined in Section 44. It involves doing of an illegal act. If it is made with intention mentioned in the section, it is an offence. Whether threat was given with intention to cause alarm to the person threatened has to be established by evidence to be brought on record..."
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Significantly, in the aforenoted dictate, the Hon'ble Court explicitly observed that the mens rea/ intention envisaged under Section 503/506 IPC must be to cause alarm to the victim and whether or not such a victim is alarmed, is not of any consequence. Apropos the present discourse, reference is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 , wherein the Hon'ble Court, while dealing with the ingredients of offence under Section(s) 503/506 IPC, inter alia, observed as under;
"11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
"503. Criminal intimidation-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 31 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:33 +0530 do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Conspicuously, in order to convict a person under Section 509 IPC, prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients, i.e.; (i) intention on the part of an accused to insult the modesty of a woman; and that the (ii) insult must be caused by; (a) uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or (b) by intruding upon the privacy of such a woman. Reference in respect of the foregoing is outrightly made to the decision in Varun Bhatia v. State & Ors., MANU/DE/5747/2023, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while explicating the contours of the provisions under Section 509 IPC, noted as under;
"18. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code delineates two pivotal components for establishing an offence: firstly, the presence of an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, and secondly, the manner in which this insult is perpetrated. The cornerstone of this provision is the requirement of intent, where the accused must possess a deliberate intention to affront or insult the modesty of a woman. This intent sets apart ordinary speech or actions from those that amount to an offence under Section 509. The insult itself can take place through two distinct modes. It can occur verbally or visually by uttering specific words, making sounds, or displaying gestures or objects, with the deliberate intent that these words, sounds, gestures, or objects are heard or seen by the woman involved. Alternatively, insult can manifest as an intrusion upon the woman's privacy, meaning thereby encroaching upon her personal space or violating her sense of privacy intentionally, in a manner that affronts her modesty. In essence, Section 509 emphasizes that intent is the linchpin of this offence, necessitating a deliberate affront to a woman's modesty for the Section to be invoked.
*** *** ***
21. In essence, both Section 354 and Section 509 of Indian Penal Code addressed the issue of outraging the modesty of a woman, but they do so in distinct SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 32 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:37 +0530 ways. Section 354 primarily deals with cases involving physical assault or the use of force against a woman, wherein her modesty is violated through actions that involve direct contact or physical harm. On the other hand, Section 509 concerns instances where words, gestures, or acts are employed with the deliberate intent to insult or offend a woman's modesty, without necessarily involving physical force. This distinction in legal provisions reflects the recognition that outraging a woman's modesty can take various forms, both physical and verbal, and the law seeks to address each of these forms distinctly to ensure justice and protection for women in different situations. In the present case, the complainant has raised allegations solely under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Here, it is further apposite to note that the superior courts have persistently avowed that in order for the provisions under Section 509 IPC to be invoked, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient, rather, insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of the said provision. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors., MANU/KE/0617/2020, in unambiguous terms, noted as under;
"8. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code provides that, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
9. Utterance of any word or making of any sound or gesture by a person, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, attracts the offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C., if such act was made intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture shall be seen by such woman.
10. There is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract Section 509 I.P.C., merely insulting a woman is not sufficient. Insult to SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 33 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:42 +0530 the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C. The crux of the offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman.
11. Section 509 I.P.C. criminalises a 'word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman' and in order to establish this offence it is necessary to show that the modesty of a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women has been insulted by a spoken word, gesture or physical act (See Khushboo v. Kanniammal, MANU/SC/0310/2010:
AIR 2010 SC 3196)."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Quite evidently, for a prosecution under Section 509 IPC to sustain, it is imperative that there are definite allegations of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into her privacy and that merely insulting a woman is different from insulting the modesty of woman. Clearly, in the former case, the allegations would fall short to even make a prima facie case for the offence under Section 509 IPC. Reference, in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Basheer v. State of Kerala, Crl. MC No. 837 of 2010, dated 24.03.2016 , wherein the Hon'ble Court, while quashing a proceeding under Section 509 IPC, remarked as under;
"3. The learned Magistrate, and also the learned Sessions Judge erred in law to find that this prosecution can proceed under Section 509 IPC. Mere insult will not attract Section 509 IPC. For a prosecution under Section 509 IPC there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of woman. Thus the allegation must involve modesty of woman or privacy of woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In Annexure A2 complaint the 2nd respondent does not have a case that the petitioners herein had insulted her modesty as a woman, or that they had intruded into her privacy in any manner. If at all the petitioners had spread or published any insulting and defamatory matters, she can initiate prosecution for defamation under Section 500 IPC, provided, the allegations would come under the definition of defamation under SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 34 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:47 +0530 Section 499 IPC. Any way mere insult or insulting words, or abuse will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In this case there is absolutely nothing in the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent, or in the final report submitted by the police to indicate that the petitioners had in any manner insulted her modesty or intruded into her privacy. Merely insulting a woman is different from insulting the modesty of woman. The subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 IPC must be the modesty of woman and not the woman as such. When there is nothing to make out the essential elements of the offence under Section 509 IPC, the prosecution against the petitioners cannot proceed under the law. I find that the present prosecution is an abuse of legal and judicial process. If at all the 2 nd respondent has a grievance or complaint that the petitioners herein had made or published any defamatory material against her alleging misappropriation of amount, she will have to pursue appropriate remedy, if at all such allegations would constitute the offence of defamation. The present prosecution cannot proceed because the complaint does not contain the essential elements or ingredients of the offence under Section 509 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied) APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
29. Therefore, being wary of the aforenoted legal principles, judicial dictates and the rival contentions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as that of Ld. Counsel for the accused, this Court would proceed with the determination of the merits of the instant case. In particular and outrightly to the effect as to, 'whether from the material placed on record, culpability under Sections 328/354/354A/354D/506/509 IPC can be attracted against the accused in the instant case?' However, before proceeding with the evaluation of the material placed on record, this Court deems it pertinent to outrightly deal with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused inter alia to the effect that the conviction of the accused cannot be premised on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, in the absence of any corroboration SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 35 of 73 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:34:51 +0530 from independent witness(es)/material. Appositely, in order to deal with the said contentions, this Court deems it pertinent to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while dealing with evidentiary value of the sole victim/prosecutrix, noted as under;
"21. ...The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. Pertinent in respect of the foregoing to further to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pratap Singh, 2016 SCC Online Del. 3207, wherein the Hon'ble Court in an akin context observed, as under;
"17. It is now well-settled that conviction for an offence of rape/sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix, if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars..."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Demonstrably, it is observed from above that it is a settled law that conviction for an offence of sexual nature/one affecting modesty of woman, can be based on the sole testimony of SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 36 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:34:54 +0530 the prosecutrix. In fact, even on a general principle, it has been recurrently avowed7 by superior courts in a catena of decisions that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness if the version of such a witness is clear and reliable, reason underlying the same being; 'the evidence has to be weighed and not counted'. Notably so, in the instances of sexual offences, courts have even gone on to the extent to appreciate and declare8 that to seek corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim, before relying upon the same would amount to adding insult to the injury sustained by such victim and have, consequently, deprecated such practice. Unmistakably, the reasons for the same can be easily inferred from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court9 in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under;
"17. We think it proper, having regard to the increase in the number of sex violation cases in the recent past, particularly cases of molestation and rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists, that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars except in the rarest of rare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the western and European countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, unfortunate that respect for womanhood in our country is on the decline and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing. An Indian woman is now required to suffer 7 Kusti Mallaiah v. State of A.P., (2013) 12 SCC 680.8
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and Munna v. State of M.P., (2014) 10 SCC 254 9 Reference also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 37 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:34:58 +0530
indignities in different forms, from lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be promoted and protected only if we deal strictly with those who violate the societal norms. The standard of proof to be expected by the court in such cases must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Concurrently, this Court is also cognizant of the fact that the incidents of sexual offences usually occur in secrecy, out of public gaze and even in the cases where witnesses to such events exit, they may not be forthcoming in supporting the prosecution's case. Unmistakably, under such circumstances, to discard the sole testimony of a prosecutrix/victim, consistent in material particulars and withstanding the rigors of cross-examination, would amount to causing gross prejudice as well as aggravating the plight of such victim/prosecutrix on one hand, while acting as impetus for the potential perpetrators of similar offences to proceed with their nefarious designs. Needless to mention the same would not only perpetuate a sense of blameworthiness in the prosecutrix/victim of such offences, rather, expose such a victim to stigmatization and penalization in the hands of the society despite the courage exhibited by her to speak out against her perpetrator. Indisputably, such a recourse would act, antagonist to, both, rule or law as well as sense of justice, on which the entire criminal jurisprudence is premised. Accordingly, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, pertaining to the lack of corroboration in the testimony of the victim by public persons, in the instant case, necessitates appreciation by this Court in light of the foregoing observations.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 38 of 73 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:35:02 +0530
33. Correspondingly, in order to accurately appreciate the contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant pertaining to contradictions/discrepancies in the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, it would be germane at this stage to explore the judicial precedents governing the law of contradictions in the testimony of the witness. In this regard, this Court deems it apt to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, wherein the Hon'ble Court inter alia observed as under;
"10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the reasons assigned to by the High SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 39 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:35:05 +0530 Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649, while dealing with similar issue, remarked as under;
"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. Patently, from a conjoint reading of the above, it is unambiguously deduced that minor discrepancies, which do not go into the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, cannot be permitted to be annexed with any undue weight. In fact, it is trite law10, the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution and those which emanate due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance and must necessarily be discarded. The rationale behind the same is quite obvious, as elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, inter alia recording as under;
"30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies 10 Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241 SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 40 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:35:27 +0530 are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
"9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." [Ed.: As observed in Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh, (2004) 9 SCC 186, p. 192, para 9]. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited..."
(Emphasis supplied)
36. Consequently, to recapitulate, in order to discard the testimony of a witness, it is imperative that the same is replete with material improvements, contradictions and variation. In contrast, law provides for due concession for marginal variations and normal discrepancies in the statement/testimony of a witness, which are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Consequently, in light of the foregoing, this Court would now proceed with the evaluation of the material placed on record.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 41 of 73
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29
16:35:31
37. Conspicuously, in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to incipiently reiterate that the fulcrum of the prosecution's case is the testimony of the complainant/victim/PW-2, who inter alia asserted before this Court that post, demise of her husband in the year 2006, she was working as a sevadar at Gurudwara Shish Ganj, where her husband was previously, working as a Superintendent. As per the prosecutrix, after the demise of her husband, she started working in the said capacity and the accused, namely, Bagga Singh used to reside in the same Gurudwara along with his family, in Quarter No. 16, as he was also working as jatthedar in the said Gurudwara. It was further testified by PW-2 that the accused was her senior at the Gurudwara and that he used to assign her duties. Correspondingly, it was proclaimed that the accused also used to normally get in touch with her/PW-2 in the capacity of a neighbour. However, as per the prosecutrix, during the year 2015, the accused also started visiting her house in the capacity of a friendly neighbour. Significantly, in her deposition, PW-2 further proclaimed that one day in the month of July, 2015, when she was resting in her house, after taking medicines as she was not feeling well and her children were present in School, the accused reached at her house and inquired of her well-being. Correspondingly, as per the complainant, the accused offered her a cold drink to comfort herself and, thereafter, returned with a cold drink, after some time. PW-2 further asserted that she consumed the cold drink, which the accused offered. However, soon thereafter, she/PW-2 got unconscious/under the influence of sleep. PW-2 further asserted that when she was consuming the cold drink, the accused was also sitting next to her and that it was around 10.00 a.m.-11.00 a.m. at that point in time. Concomitantly, as per the SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 42 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:35:34 +0530 complainant, when she regained consciousness, she found that her children had returned from their School, who used to return at around 02.00 p.m. Strikingly, as per PW-2, on the date of incident, she was wearing black colour T-shirt and white colour lower.
38. Notably, PW-2 further deposed that in the month of October 2015, the accused showed her/PW-2, her/PW-2's two obscene photographs in his mobile phone, in which she was seen wearing the aforementioned clothes. PW-2 further deposed that on seeing the same, she realized that the accused might have taken the said photographs on the day when she got unconscious, after consuming cold drink, brought by him. Significantly, as per the complainant, at that point in time, the accused asked her to establish physical relations with him, failing which, he/accused threatened her/PW-2 that he would circulate the said photographs to her acquaintance. As per PW-2, she flatly refused to the said advances of the accused, whereupon the accused started harassing her. During the course of her deposition, PW-2 further proclaimed that the accused used to trouble her whenever she came out of her house; call her on her mobile phone, unnecessarily and at odd hours; and passed obscene/lewd comments at her. Correspondingly, PW-2 asserted that one day in the month of January, 2016, the accused reached her house when she was alone and started misbehaving ("jor jabardasti karne ki koshish karne lga") with her/PW-2. The complainant further proclaimed that as she raised an alarm, the accused fled from the spot, however, after the said incident, the accused started threatening to defame her/PW-2 by circulating her said obscene photographs. In fact, as per PW-2, she was told by the accused that he had actually circulated her said photographs. Consequently, as per PW-2, she made a complaint in the year 2016 to Gurudwara Committee (Ex.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 43 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:35:37 +0530
PW-2/C), which was duly identified by the witness during the course of her deposition. However, as per PW-2, the Committee suspended both her/PW-2 and the accused from their respective employments. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2016, the complainant is asserted to have approached the police officials at PS Kotwali and tendered her written complaint ( Ex. PW-2/A), leading to the registration of the instant FIR. PW-2 further proclaimed that during the course of investigation, IO W/SI Seema visited her house/quarter at the said Gurudwara and she/PW-2 showed the said police official, the place where the accused had offered her cold drink and the IO prepared a site plan of the said place. It was further asserted by PW-2 that her counselling was conducted through a female counsellor and during the course of investigation, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. ( Ex. PW-2/B(Colly.)) was recorded before Ld. MM, which was duly identified by the witness during the course of her deposition. Relevantly, during her deposition, PW-2 identified herself in the photographs/obscene photographs shown to her from CD placed on record (which CD is Ex. P-1).
39. Apposite here to reproduce the relevant extracts from the cross-examination of PW-2 as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. ***, Advocate for the accused Bagga Singh.
I have studied up to 12th Class. I can read and write Hindi and Punjabi. I had been working in Delhi Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee since year 2007. The incident of taking photographs by accused occurred in my room. There was only one room in my house. I cannot tell the exact dimension/size of the said room. Kitchen and bathroom are attached with the said room. There is space of 2-3 feet to move in the said room apart from the household articles lying in my room.
At this stage obscene photograph Ex. PW2/D1 of witness is shown to witness and witness is asked whether the said photograph was of her while she was SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh PageDigitally 44 of 73 signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:35:41 +0530 lying on floor on bed sheet. Witness stated that she was lying on bed.
It is wrong to suggest I was lying on floor instead of bed in the aforesaid photograph. It is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid photograph is of not my room. I came to know in October, 2015 that accused had taken my obscene photographs. I made first complaint about the said incident to Manager of Gurudwara Sheeshganj when the accused shown my photographs to me and started harassing me. I do not know the exact date when I made the complaint to Manager, Sheeshganj Gurudwara. The said Manager used to sit in room No. 1 at Sheeshganj Gurudwara. No action was taken on the said complaint and the accused kept on harassing me.
Thereafter, I made complaint to Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Rakabganj Saheb. I was called to Rakabganj Saheb in respect of my aforesaid complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I was suspended by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Rakabganj Saheb as my complaint was false and I made the said complaint out of jealousy against the accused. I know the accused since year 2007 when I started working as Sewadar at Gurudwara Sheeshganj. It is correct that earlier I used to have good family relations with the accused. It is correct that the job of accused was to assign duties to different persons working in Gurudwara Sheeshganj. It is wrong to suggest that I had disputes with the accused many times over assignment of my duty. It is wrong to suggest that I have used the mobile phone of accused many times due to good family relations with him. It is wrong to suggest that I had taken the mobile phone of accused for my use.
At this stage photograph mark PW1/DX is shown to witness and witness stated that the said photograph is not of her. It is wrong to suggest that the said photograph being part of CD Ex. P1 is of mine. Question: Is it correct that in photograph Ex. PW1/D2, you have lifted your shirt/upper wear with your own hands?
Answer: I do not know. I was unconscious at that time.
It is wrong to suggest that I was not unconscious when the said photograph was taken as I was lifting my upper wear with my hands and hid my face. On the day of incident, I was not feeling well as I was suffering from piles. I had not visited the doctor and I took medicines from chemist shop. I was on SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 45 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.08.29
16:35:44
+0530
leave on that day. I was not advised cold drink by anyone for my aforesaid disease. The accused himself had brought the cold drink. It is wrong to suggest that I have concocted a false story against the accused that he had made me drink cold drink due to which I became unconscious and accused took my obscene photographs. After drinking cold drink I became unconscious and on that day when I woke up I thought that it might be the effect of medicine I had taken. Question: Whether have you ever felt like you have consumed any intoxicated substance? Answer: On the day of incident, my daughter awoke me up after I became unconscious and I was feeling very sleepy due to which I felt something suspicious.
I had not seen my aforesaid photographs in mobile phone of any person except the phone of accused. Accused had told me that he had made my photographs viral. He had shown my photographs to Management Committee of Gurudwara. It is wrong to suggest that I have implicated the accused in false case as he had not assigned duties to me according to my wishes. Police recorded my statement only once. I gave my statement at P.S. Kotwali. Police had not recorded statement of any other person in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely against the accused.
*** *** *** The complaint Ex. PW2/C is in my handwriting. It is correct that the allegation regarding use of intoxicating substance by the accused is not mentioned in the said complaint. It is wrong to suggest that the said fact is not mentioned in the complaint as no such incident had ever happened."
(Emphasis supplied)
40. Here, it is pertinent to further refer the deposition of PW-6/Mr. Yashpal Singh who inter alia asserted that in the year 2016, he was working in Vigilance Department of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee and that a complaint ( Ex. PW-2/C) was received from a sewadarni/the complainant herein against misconduct of the accused, who was working as jatthedar in Bangla Sahib Gurudwara and residing in quarter at Gurudwara Shish Ganj Sahib. PW-6 further proclaimed that the said complaint SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 46 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:35:47 +0530 was marked to him for enquiry, whereupon, such inquiry was conducted by him and a report (Ex. PW-6/D) was forwarded for further action. Pertinently, during his evidence, PW-6 proved the true translation of the aforesaid complaint of the complainant as Ex. PW-6/A as well as the version of the accused as Ex. PW-6/B with its true translation as Ex. PW-6/C and other documents along with their true translation pertaining to the said proceedings as Ex. PW-6/E (Colly.). Further, PW-6 correctly identified the accused before this Court. Correspondingly, PW-6 also asserted that after enquiry, the complainant as well as the accused were suspended and were ordered to vacate the staff quarters. Synchronously, as per PW-6, the accused vacated his quarter, however, the complainant obtained an order of stay against such order of vacation of quarter. As per PW-6, he was subsequently transferred to Gurudwara Bala Sahib, Sarai Kale Khan. Markedly, upon being cross-examined, PW-6 inter alia, declared, as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Advocate for the accused, namely, Bagga Singh.
I am graduate. I know Hindi and Punjabi language. I started working in Gurudwara Management Committee in the year 1995. I was transferred to Vigilance Department in the year 2014. In the year 2016, there were 3 employees in Vigilance Department. The complaint of Ms. B*** K*** was marked to me for enquiry by General Manager of Management Committee on 25.04.2016. I was verbally told by General Manager to make enquiry on complaint of Ms. B*** K***.
Mr. Jang Bahadur Singh, who was also in Vigilance Department assisted me in the aforesaid enquiry. The complaint of Ms. B*** K*** was in Punjabi language. It is correct that there was no allegations of administering sedative / intoxicated substance to the complainant by the accused in the complaint of Ms. B*** K*** already Ex.PW2/C. The enquiry went on for 4-5 days. I had seen the obscene photographs of the complainant in the mobile phone of the accused. I had not seen the said obscene photographs in mobile phone of any other persons SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 47 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:35:51 +0530 including the complainant. (Vol.: The other persons, except the complainant, had not shown their mobile phones.) I had checked the mobile phone of Ms. B*** K*** and I had not found obscene photographs of the complainant in her mobile phone.
Question No. 1: Is it correct that the said obscene photographs suggest that the photographs were taken with the consent of the complainant? Answer: I had made enquiry from the complainant and she stated that she did not know how that happened.
Question No. 2: Is it correct that the complainant was suspended along with the accused as she was also involved with the accused in the incident? Answer: They were suspended as the said incident happened within the premises of Gurudwara Management Committee.
On 25.04.2016, I conducted enquiry in office of Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib. I made enquiry from Ms. B*** K*** twice in the said case. I had not seen the room of Ms. B*** K*** (Vol.: I had visited the said room but it was found locked.) I had known the accused, namely, Bagga Singh for a long time. On 26.04.2016, I called the accused to my office in Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib for enquiry. (Vol.: On 25.04.2016, I contacted the accused and he was out station on that day. He came to my office on 26.04.2016.) I called the accused as well as the complainant together at my office on 26.04.2016. I made enquiry from them collectively as well as separately. I had not taken print-out of the said obscene photographs. I had not kept any documentary proof including print-out of obscene photographs to show that the mobile phone of the accused contained obscene photographs. It is wrong to suggest that I have deliberately and intentionally not kept the said record as I came to conclusion that the said photographs were taken with the consent of the complainant and the accused was not guilty of misconduct.
It is wrong to suggest that the complainant had not made any allegation of threat or blackmailing against the accused. The accused as well as the complainant were suspended on 27.04.2016. I gave my final report perhaps on 26.04.2016. (Vol.: The translated copy of report Ex. PW6/D was given by me after about 3-4 months.) IO of the present case made enquiry from me in the month of September, 2016. I do not know whether my statement was recorded or not. It is wrong to suggest that the accused was not guilty of SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 48 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:35:54 +0530 misconduct in my enquiry. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely to strengthen the case of the prosecution at the instance of the IO."
(Emphasis supplied)
41. Germane, for the purposes of present discourse to make a reference to the testimony of PW-8/Dr. Vikas Kumar, who conducted forensic analysis on the seized mobile phone of the accused and proved the FSL report in his testimony. Relevantly, during the course of his deposition before this Court, PW-8 inter alia proclaimed that on 21.09.2016, a sealed parcel in the present case was received in their office, which was marked to him for forensic examination. PW-8 further deposed that the said parcel was sealed with the seal 'SJ', which was found intact and tallied with the specimen seal, as per the forwarding letter. Correspondingly, PW-8 asserted that on opening the seal, the parcel was found containing, one sealed plastic container, containing one Spice made Mobile Phone of Mi-498 make, bearing IMEI Nos. 911401250029723 and 911401250029731 (mobile marked as 'MP1') and containing, two SIM Cards of Vodafone Company, half-cut and bearing No. 89911190185065424617H1SY, marked as 'SC1' and 'SC2', respectively, and a Memory Card of 8GB capacity, marked as 'MC1'. It was further proclaimed by PW-8 that upon analysis of the said exhibits, i.e., 'MP1', 'SC1' and 'SC2', obscene images were retrieved from 'MP1', which were enclosed in one Compact Disc/CD marked as 'CD-A' with folder named 'DATA OF MP1'. However, as per PW-8, no obscene chats and SMS were retrieved from 'MP1'. Correspondingly, as per PW-8, no SMS were retrieved from 'SC1' and 'SC2', besides, no obscene images could be retrieved from 'SC1'. Further, as per PW-8, upon forensic analysis of 'MC1', obscene images were retrieved and transferred SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 49 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:35:57 +0530 to CD-A, under the folder named, 'DATA OF MC1'. However, even under the said memory card/MC1, no obscene messages could be retrieved, as per PW-8. Pertinently, PW-8 proved a certificate, issued by him under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of CD-A as Ex. PW-8/B as well as proved his/PW-8's report dated 27.11.2020 in respect of the said analysis as Ex. PW-8/A(Colly.). Further, PW-8 asserted that the said CD along with his certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the case property were sealed with the seal of 'DOC FSL' and forwarded to the concerned authorities. Pertinently, during the course of his examination, PW-8 also proved the aforesaid CD as Ex. P-1 and the mobile phone along with SIM Card and memory card as Ex. P-2 (colly.).
42. Significantly, during the course of his cross- examination, PW-8 proclaimed as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Advocate for the accused, namely, Bagga Singh.
I cannot comment whether the aforesaid obscene images were forwarded to any other mobile phone from the aforesaid mobile phone as no obscene chats and SMSs were retrieved from "MP1" as well as "SC1" and "SC2".
I cannot comment whether the images were got clicked voluntarily by the person shown in the said images. I had not examined the images for tempering as it was not queried by the forwarding authority."
(Emphasis supplied)
43. Germane, for the purpose of present discourse to refer the deposition of PW-1/HC Sachin Kumar, who proclaimed that on 02.07.2016, he was posted as a Constable at PS Kotwali and on the said day, he was handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka by the concerned DO with direction to hand over the same to IO W/SI Seema, present at Sheeshganj Gurudwara. Consequently, as per PW-1, he complied with the said directions. Notably, the SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 50 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:00 +0530 said witness was not cross examined by/on behalf of the accused, despite being afforded an opportunity.
44. At this stage, this Court deems it further pertinent to make a reference to the deposition of the concerned IO, PW-9/SI Seema, who proclaimed before this Court that on 02.07.2016, while she was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Kotwali, the complainant reached at the said police station and tendered her written complaint. Thereupon, PW-9 made an endorsement (Ex. PW-9/A) on the said complaint for the registration of FIR and handed over the same to the DO for the said purpose. PW-9 further asserted that thereafter, she along with the complainant went to Quarter No. 6, at Gurudwara Shish Ganj Sahib, where she/PW-9 prepared the site plan Ex. PW-9/B at the instance of complainant. PW-9 corroborated the deposition of PW-1 to the effect that he/PW-1 reached at the said spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to her/PW-1. Consequently, she recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and thereafter, returned to PS Kotwali along with PW-1, where the statement of PW-1 was recorded. Correspondingly, as per PW-9, on 06.07.2016, counselling of the complainant was got conducted by the concerned counsellor at the Delhi Commission of Women and subsequently, on 11.07.2016, she/PW-9 got the statement of complainant recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-2/B (Colly.)) vide her application Ex. PW-9/C. Thereafter, on 25.07.2016, PW-9 along with HC Rakesh went to Police Post Jharoda, where Ct. Phool Chand joined them in the investigation. As per PW-9, the proceeded and reached Gali No. 6, Baba Colony, Burari in search of the accused and the accused was apprehended in front of house, whereupon he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/C as well as personally searched the accused vide memo Ex.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 51 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:36:04 +0530
PW-5/D. Concomitantly, PW-9 proved the accused's disclosure statement as Ex. PW-5/G as well as asserted that one mobile phone was recovered from accused's possession, which was kept in a plastic box, sealed with the seal of 'SJ' and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/A. PW-9 further deposed that a train ticket, Ex. PW5/F was also recovered from the accused person's possession which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B. Simultaneously, as per PW-9, pointing out memo (Ex. PW5/E) of the place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of accused and thereafter, the case property was deposited in the malkhana by PW-9. Subsequently, on 06.09.2016, as per PW-9, she called the Vigilance Officer of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee to the police station, after serving him a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-9/E) to produce the complaint filed by the complainant and the documents related to the enquiry conducted thereon. Consequently, PW-9 proclaimed that Mr. Yashpal Singh, reached at the police station on 06.09.2016 and produced the copy of complaint (Ex. PW2/C) and documents pertaining to the said enquiry, along with their Hindi translation (Ex. PW-6/A to Ex. PW-6/E). PW-9 further asserted that she recorded the statement of Mr. Yashpal Singh and on 21.09.2016, she got deposited the mobile phone of the accused to FSL through Ct. Naushad. Further, as per PW-9, she recorded the statement of Ct. Naushad and on completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet before the concerned court. Needless to mention that PW-9, during the course of her deposition, correctly identified the accused as well as the mobile phone along with SIM cards as well as memory cards, recovered from accused's possession as Ex. P-2(Colly.).
45. Significantly, upon being cross examined by/on SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 52 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:36:07 +0530 behalf of the accused, PW-9 affirmed as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. ***, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
I did not use to visit Sheeshganj Gurudwara during my official work not related to the present case. I went to the place of occurrence for the first time on 02.07.2016. Quarter No. 6 was situated at first floor of the building. I cannot tell the area of room in feet or meters but it was a small room in the said quarter. (Vol. It was a one room set). So far as I remember the area of room was such that only 2-3 ft. wide space was available in the said room after keeping a double bed. I had not made any inquiry from the occupants of quarter no. 5 and 7. I had not made inquiry from the children of victim. (Vol. From the contents of complainant, it was certain that children were not aware about the unconsciousness of the complainant). I had not seized the mobile phone of victim during investigation. I do not remember whether the complainant had not mentioned anything about sedative substance in his complaint made to vigilance committee of Sheeshganj Gurudwara. It is correct that after receiving complaint the management of Sheeshganj Gurudwara had suspended the accused and complainant. I had not made investigation from the committee of Sheeshganj Gurudwara about the conduct of accused. It is correct that accused was working as Jathedaar in Sheeshganj Gurudwara and he was senior to the complainant and his job was to assign duties to other persons including complainant. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant had made allegations against the accused due to assignment of duties to her by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I came to know during investigation that complainant used to extort money from the vendors outside the Sheeshganj Gurudwara. It is wrong to suggest that there were no photographs in the mobile phone of accused. I had seen the said photographs. I do not remember whether the said photographs are of the floor instead of bed. It is wrong to suggest that the said photographs were self created/self made. I do not remember at what time I received secret information about the presence of accused on 25.07.2016. I was accompanied by one police official from PS Kotwali and one police official from PP Jharoda when I arrested the accused. I had made request to public persons to join investigation during arrest of accused but nobody agreed. I do not remember which vehicle were used by me to reach the house of accused from PS Kotwali. I do not remember for how long we remained at the place of arrest of the accused.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 53 of 73
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29
16:36:10
*** *** ***
I do not remember the number of witnesses whose statement was recorded by me in the present case. I might have recorded the statement of around ten witnesses. I recorded their statement on different dates during investigation. I recorded statement of only one witness in respect of vigilance inquiry. I recorded the statement of said witness in police station. I seized the mobile phone of only accused. I had not seized the mobile phone of complainant or any other person. I had not checked the mobile phone of accused to ascertain whether he sent any photograph / picture to other person. I seized the said mobile phone on the day of arrest of accused and I deposited the said mobile phone in malkhana on the same day. I had not checked the contents of mobile phone. (Vol. I had sent the same to FSL). I got deposited the said mobile phone in FSL on 21.09.2016. So far as I remember, the complainant had mentioned about the mobile phone of accused in her complaint. I prepared the site plan on the same day when the complainant made complaint. The site plan was without scale. The complainant was with me when I prepared the site plan. No police official or any public person was present there at that time. It is correct that I had not seen the photographs during investigation till filing of the chargesheet. It is wrong to suggest that there was no obscene photograph of the complainant. (Vol. The vigilance officer had stated about the obscene photograph). It is correct that I had not found any sedative substance from the possession of the accused and no medical report in respect of administration of sedative substance to complainant was produced by the complainant. I was not aware that the victim alone was held guilty in vigilance inquiry. I had not made any inquiry from the officials of Sheesh Ganj Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. I had sent notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to vigilance department which was in the headquarter of Delhi Shikh Gurudwara Management Committee. I had verified the permanent address of accused Bagga Singh during investigation through other police official. I had not visited the permanent address of accused Bagga Singh. I do not remember whether I had made any mobile phone call to accused Bagga Singh after this FIR.
It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely implicated the accused at the instance of the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that I had not conducted the fair and proper investigation. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 54 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:36:15 +0530
46. Pertinently, for a comprehensive analysis of the facts of the present case, this Court deems it pertinent here to refer the deposition of PW-4/HC Naushad Ali, who affirmed that on 21.09.2016, while being posted as Constable at PS Kotwali, he collected one plastic box sealed with the seal of 'SJ' from the malkhana, on the instructions of the IO/PW-9 and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 77/21/16 (Ex. PW3/B) against acknowledgment (Ex. PW3/C). Further, it is pertinent to refer to the deposition of PW-7/SI (Retd.) Manohar Lal, who confirmed the factum of registration of FIR on 02.07.2016 on the receipt of rukka from PW-9 at around 05:35 p.m., which is asserted to have been typed by CIPA Operator, on the computer installed in the police station on PW-7's dictation. PW-7 further produced the original FIR register, copy of which FIR was proved as Ex. PW7/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW7/B. PW-7 further asserted that he issued certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of registration of FIR as Ex. PW7/C. Further, as per PW-7, after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct. Sachin for being delivered to the IO/SI Seema. Notably, while PW-4 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused, however, PW-7 in his cross-examination affirmed that it took around 20-25 minutes in recording the FIR, however, he expressed inability to recollect whether the IO was accompanied by any other person when she gave him/PW-7 the original tehrir for registration of FIR.
47. Apposite to further refer the deposition of PW-3/HC Pradeep Bhardwaj, MHC(M), who confirmed the factum of deposit of one plastic box sealed with the seal of 'SJ', containing one mobile phone in the malkhana vide entry at Sr. No. 5734 in SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 55 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:19 +0530 Reg. No. 19 by PW-9 on 25.07.2016. Correspondingly, PW-3 proved the relevant pages of Reg. No. 19 containing entry No. 5734 as Ex. PW3/A. Further, as per PW-3, on 21.09.2016, the said sealed plastic box was sent to FSL, Rohini, through PW-4/Ct. Naushad Ali vide RC No. 77/21/16 (Ex. PW3/B) and copy of acknowledgment received from FSL, Rohini as Ex.PW3/C. As per PW-3, on 27.11.2020, result from FSL, Rohini was received along with case property as per Reg. No. 19. Markedly, PW-3 asserted that as long as the aforesaid parcel remained with him in the malkhana, the seal of the plastic box remained intact and that the same was not tampered with. Notably, reference is also made at this stage, to the deposition of PW-10/ASI Brijesh Kumar, who deposed regarding the preparation and filing of supplementary chargesheet along with FSL report (Ex. PW8/A). Significantly, the accused opted not to cross-examine PW-3 and PW-10, despite opportunity.
48. Conspicuously, reference is made to the deposition of PW-5/ASI Rakesh Kumar, who proclaimed that on 25.07.2016, while being posted as Head Constable at PS Kotwali, he along with PW-9 went to police post Jharoda and one constable accompanied them to H. No. 372, A-Block, Gali No.6, Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi. Further, as per PW-5, the accused met them in the gali/street, whereupon, the IO made enquiry from him as well as carried out his personal search. As per PW-5, upon being so searched, one dual SIM mobile phone of Spice make, containing SIM cards was recovered from the possession of the accused and the accused also produced one train ticket. PW-5 corroborated the seizure of the said mobile phone in a plastic container sealed with the seal of 'SJ' vide memo Ex. PW5/A. Correspondingly, as per PW-5, PW-9 also seized the said train ticket ( Ex. PW5/F) vide SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 56 of 73 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:36:22 +0530 seizure memo Ex. PW5/B; arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C; carried out his personal search vide memo Ex. PW5/D; and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/G. Subsequently, the pointing out memo Ex. PW5/E is also asserted to have been prepared at the instance of the accused, however, as per PW-5, nothing could be recovered at the instance of the accused. PW-5 further corroborated that PW-9 deposited the case property in malkhana. Needless to mention that PW-9, during the course of her deposition, correctly identified the accused as well as the mobile phone along with SIM cards as well as memory cards, recovered from accused's possession as Ex. P-2(Colly.). Relevantly in his cross-examination, PW-5 asserted as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Advocate for the accused.
IO knew the address where accused Bagga Singh was arrested and I accompanied her to the said address. I along with IO proceeded from police station. I do not remember by which mode of transport we proceeded from police station. I saw the accused Bagga Singh in gali in front of the aforesaid house for the first time. No public person came to us when IO conducted proceedings against the accused. We were in uniform at the time of arrest of the accused. I do not remember the mode of transport used by us when we brought the accused to PS. I along with IO and one constable were present at the time of arrest of the accused. We remained at the place of arrest of accused for around 1½ - 2 hours. It was daytime at about 03.00 p.m. - 04.00 p.m. I do not remember whether IO had recorded statement of any person during that period. It is wrong to suggest that I never visited the place of arrest of accused Bagga Singh that is why I do not remember the mode of transport. It is wrong to suggest that no mobile phone was recovered from possession of accused Bagga Singh. IO did not check the contents of mobile phone of accused in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that said mobile phone did not contain any SIM card. Vol. It contained two SIM cards. We returned to police station at about 08.00 p.m. - 09.00 p.m. after medical examination of the accused. My statement was recorded by the IO on the same day. IO did not record statement of any other person in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that IO SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 57 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:25 +0530 did not record disclosure statement of accused Bagga Singh. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(Emphasis supplied)
49. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, this Court would now proceed with the evaluation of the material placed on record. In this regard, it is outrightly noted that in the instant case, except for the statement of the complainant/PW-2 before this Court, nothing else is forthcoming from the charge-sheet/material placed on record or from the prosecution evidence that the accused had in actuality/really, administered any sedative/poisonous/intoxicating substance to the complainant in the instance case. On the contrary, as aforenoted, the complainant/PW-2, merely proclaimed in her deposition inter alia to the effect that in the month of July 2015, the accused reached at her house and on the pretext of asking about her well-being, offered her cold drink and upon consumption of the same, she started,"...becoming unconscious/under the influence of sleep...". In fact, even in the charge-sheet, it is specifically recorded that after his apprehension, the accused disclosed that he had thrown the cold drink bottle in a garbage bin, which could not be recovered (जो मुल्जिम ने दरियामत पर बतलाया कि उसने कोल्ड ड्रि न्कं की बोतल को कु छेदान में फै क दिया था जिसकी बरामदगी नहीं हो सकी।). Correspondingly, nowhere in the statement of the concerned IO/PW-9 SI Seema, anything forthcoming to the effect that any attempt or endeavour was made by her/PW-9 to retrieve any such intoxicating/poisonous substance, allegedly administered to the prosecutrix by the accused. Similarly, nowhere in her deposition, PW-2 asserted whether any inquiry was made from her regarding the said alleged intoxicating/poisonous substance. Needless to further mention that there is no evidence in the form of any MLC SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 58 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:29 +0530 of the complainant or of any of other articles, allegedly deployed by the accused to intoxicate the complainant, as asserted by PW-2 in her deposition, to determine with certainty, the presence of any poisonous, intoxicating, stupefying, or unwholesome drug either in person of the complainant or any other article. Further, as aforenoted, no such substance is either proclaimed to have been recovered either from or at the behest of the accused, by any of the prosecution witnesses/investigating officer. In fact, during the course of her cross examination, PW-9 specifically admitted that she had not found any sedative substance from the possession of the accused and that, "...no medical report in respect of administration of sedative substance to complainant was produced by the complainant...". Clearly, under such circumstances, except for the aforenoted oral assertion of the complainant, no other corroborative material/evidence has been brought to the attention of this Court, so as to unambiguously bring home the charges/culpability under Section 328 IPC against the accused in the instant case, in view of the decisions in Krishna Kant v. State (Supra.) and CBI v. Samson D'souza (Supra.). Quite evidently, under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 328 IPC, in considered opinion of this Court, cannot be attracted against the accused for the reason that in the absence of accessibility to any forensic/Scientific evidence, it would not be within the domain of this Court to give any finding whether any such substance was, in fact, administered by the accused to the complainant herein. Even otherwise, it is further pertinent to note that PW-2, during the course of her cross-examination by/on the behest of the accused, specifically admitted that in her initial complaint made to the Gurudwara Committee (Ex. PW2/C), she made no reference to the (alleged) use of any intoxicating substance by the accused.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 59 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:36:33 +0530
Correspondingly, PW-6 Mr. Yashpal Singh admitted during the course of his cross-examination that there was, "...no allegations of administering sedative/intoxicated substance to the complainant by the accused in the complaint of Ms. B*** K*** already Ex. PW2/C...". Ergo, under such circumstances, this Court unambiguously reaches the conclusion that the charges/offence under Section 328 IPC cannot be attributed to/against the accused, 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the instant case.
50. Correspondingly, upon conscientious perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is further not convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under Section 354 IPC against the accused in the instant case. In this regard, this Court decidedly records that nowhere under her deposition, the complainant/PW-2 asserted regarding the nature of act, performed by the accused with the complainant. In fact, in her deposition, PW-2 merely proclaimed that in the month of January, 2016, the accused reached her house when she was alone and started misbehaving ("jor jabardasti karne ki koshish karne lga" ) with her/PW-2. Clearly, under such circumstances, with the use of words such as misbehaviour or 'jor jabardasti karne ki koshish karne lga', in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be determined with utmost certainty, as to the use of criminal force or assault by the accused on the complainant and/or whether such force and/or assault was directed towards the complainant with an intention or knowledge to outrage her modesty in the instant case. Needless to mention that the law is trite 11 that vague statement on 11 Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of UP & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 1093/2021, dated 02.01.2025 . Reference is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Virender v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal No. 121/2008, dated 18.09.2009, wherein the Hon'ble Court accentuated the importance of explication of nature of act to meet the requirement of offence/exact nature of allegations against an accused, by inter alia noting, "41. An examination of txhe statement made by the prosecutrix would have to be examined in the context of the social milieu from which a victim may hail. A person who has grown up with the family surviving in a single room dwelling may carry different impressions and knowledge of intimacies. An understanding of a child as to what has SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 60 of 73 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:36:36 +0530 the part of the complainant are insufficient to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC.
51. Concomitantly, this Court is also not convinced that in light of the facts and circumstances as well as the material placed on record, the ingredients of offence under Section 354D IPC are unequivocally made out against the accused. In this regard, it is apposite to note that though the complainant had asserted during her evidence that the accused used to call her on her mobile phone, unnecessarily and at odd times as well as, used to pass obscene comments on her, however, no such records of telephone calls/messages have been placed on record by the prosecution. In fact, nowhere in her deposition, PW-2 asserted that she had presented her said mobile phone to the concerned Investigating Officer for scrutiny of such telephone calls/messages. Simultaneously, PW-9, during her cross examination, affirmed that she had not seized the mobile phone of the victim during the investigation. In fact, in her cross-examination, the IO/PW-9 reiterated, "...I seized the mobile phone of only accused. I had not seized the mobile phone of the complainant or any other person. I had not checked the mobile phone of accused to ascertain whether he sent any photograph/picture to other person...". Needless to been done to her would depend on her maturity, education and knowledge which could be sourced from several factors including education, exposure, environment; upbringing and media. In the Indian context, society and societal relationships still follow conservative patterns. There are large pockets even in Delhi, many communities and social groups where covering of heads and the purdah system in the presence of males is still prevalent. Physical display of affection between persons of opposite sexes in the form of even holding of hands is unacceptable, and a hug is absolutely taboo. By and large there is no physical display of affection, intimacy or closeness and gestures as hugging or kissing invite public censure even amongst the progressive and modern. The conventional Indian namaskar manifests the traditional reserve of the nation.*** 42. Commission of an offence under section 376 certainly requires some evidence with regard to the acts which were committed by an accused person to establish the ingredients of the offence. The statement which has been recorded in court does not at all enable any conclusion to be derived as to what was the comprehension of the prosecutrix as to what are the relations between a husband and wife. In any traditional and conservative Indian family, any act from mere touch to the ultimate intimacy of sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other would, in common parlance, would be covered within the gamut of acts which could be labelled as "galat kaam" or "gandi harkatein". This range would also cover the intimacies shared by a married couple. Such understanding of even the learned trial judge is manifested from the proceedings in that while putting the evidence to the appellant under section 313 of the CrPC, as question 4, it has been put to the appellant that he had "misbehaved" with the prosecutrix.*** 43. The prosecutrix has explained 'galat kaam' to mean 'something that the husband and wife do in the night'. No questions to ascertain the size of the house; background; whether the prosecutrix has any siblings or any other relatives who were cohabiting have been put. The record does not indicate as to what is the comprehension or understanding level of this child. The testimony of the prosecutrix does not reflect as to what is her understanding of the physical intimacy which a married couple shares."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 61 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:36:39 +0530
mention that even PW-8/Mr. Vikas Kumar, during the course of his deposition, only proved the obscene photographs retrieved from the mobile phone of the accused and no such (alleged) repeated calls or messages, directed by/circulated between the accused to the complainant were proved even during the testimony of the said witness. In fact, the prosecution did not make endeavour to place on record the call detail records/CDRs of the accused or that of the complainant. Ergo, under such circumstances, it is reiterated that this Court finds it difficult to reach a conclusion that the ingredients of offence under Section 354D IPC are made out/established, beyond a pale of doubt, against the accused in the present case. At this stage, this Court further finds itself difficult to concede with the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the contact of the accused with the prosecutrix in the month of January 2016 after the prosecutrix had earlier rebuked the endeavour on the part of the accused to coerce her to physical intimacy would fulfil the ingredients of Section 354D IPC. In fact, in this regard, it is reiterated that nowhere in her deposition, PW-2/the complainant explicated the nature of act performed by the accused at such point in time, except to here mere assertion that the accused misbehaved with her ( "jor jabardasti karne ki koshish karne lga"). Ergo, in the absence of such explication as to the nature of act allegedly performed by the accused towards the complainant in January, 2016, this Court cannot reach, an indubitable finding that the accused repeatedly contacted the complainant despite expression of disinterest on the part of the complainant.
52. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, upon scrupulous analysis of the material placed on record, in particular, from a scrutiny of the testimony of the prosecutrix/PW-2, it is SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 62 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:42 +0530 observed that she explicitly proclaimed in her deposition that in the month of October 2015, the accused showed her, two obscene pictures of her's in his mobile phone and threatened the complainant to make physical relations with him, failing which, the accused proclaimed that he would circulate the said photographs to her acquaintances. Correspondingly, PW-2 asserted in her deposition that even after the month of January 2016, the accused used to threaten to defame the complainant by circulating her said obscene photographs. Pertinent here to further note that PW-8/Mr. Vikas Kumar specifically proved the retrieval of obscene photographs from the mobile phone and the memory card, recovered from the possession of the accused, which were transferred to CD (Ex. P-1). Needless to mention that the prosecutrix, during the course of her evidence, identified herself as the person in few of said obscene photographs, where she was found wearing black colour T-Shirt and white colour lower. Relevantly, nowhere, during the cross-examination of PW-8, the accused denied such retrieval of such obscene photographs, rather, a suggestion was posed to PW-8 to the effect that the said images/obscene images were got clicked voluntarily by the person shown in the said images, to which PW-8 asserted that he could not comment. Correspondingly, nowhere during the cross- examination of PW-2, was any suggestion posed to the said witness, denying the allegation of him/the accused's showing the said photographs to the complainant or even denied of him threatening the complainant to circulate the said obscene photographs, in case she/PW-2 did not submit to his/accused's demands for physical relationship. In fact, the accused inter alia suggested to the prosecutrix that in the photograph (Ex. PW1/D2) SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 63 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:46 +0530 she had herself lifted her shirt/upper wear with her own hands, which the prosecutrix denied.
53. Similarly, nowhere during the cross-examination of the IO/PW-9, was any suggestion posed by the accused regarding the seizure of the mobile phone or that denying his/accused's ownership of the mobile phone in question. In fact, the accused did not even deny the search and seizure proceedings qua his mobile phone and merely suggested to the IO/PW-9 that the photographs in question were self-created/self-made, which the IO/PW-9 denied. Needless to reiterate that PW-9 affirmed in her cross- examination that she had seized the mobile phone only of accused and not of the complainant. Here, it is further pertinent to note that the accused, even under his statement dated 23.04.2025, recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., did not deny such search and recovery proceedings, rather, termed the same as matters on record. At this stage, this Court deems it pertinent to reproduce the relevant extracts of accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as under;
"...Q. 38: It is in evidence against you that PW-9/SI Seema deposed that she interrogated you and recorded your disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW-5/G, bearing her signature at point B. As per PW-9, one mobile phone was recovered from your possession of and she kept the said mobile phone in a plastic box, which was sealed by PW-9 with the seal of 'SJ' and seized by PW-9 vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-5/A, bearing her signature at point B. What you have to say?
Answer: It is a matter of record..."
(Emphasis supplied)
54. Here, it is further pertinent to note that nowhere, during the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses, in particular, that of PW-3/HC Pradeep Bhardwaj, PW-4/HC Naushad Ali, PW5/ASI Rakesh Kumar and PW-9/IO W/SI Seema, SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 64 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:49 +0530 any question/suggestion was posed/put to the said witnesses by the accused to propose that there was any tampering in the case property i.e. the aforesaid seized mobile phone/accused's mobile phone. Apposite to further note that though the accused/Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently contended/argued that there are material improvements in the testimony of the prosecutrix from her earlier complaint, however, the accused has opted not to confront the witness on such improvements/her earlier statement. Needless to mention that the same is despite the fact that the law is trite that the ' so called' improvements in the testimony of a witness/victim vis-a-vis said witness'/victim's earlier statement cannot be considered by court in the absence of confrontation in terms of the provisions under Section 161/162 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Reference in this regard, is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 , wherein the Hon'ble Court, after duly considering various provisions under law, in particular that under Section 161/162 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, observed as under;
"16. Section 162 CrPC bars use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated there. The statement made by a witness before the police under Section 161(1) CrPC can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) CrPC. The statements under Section 161 CrPC recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose: (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re-examination of the witness if necessary.
17. The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 65 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.08.29
16:36:52
+0530
reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words in Section 162 CrPC "if duly proved" clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway nor can be looked into but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross- examination of the investigating officer. The statement before the investigating officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act that is by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.
*** *** ***
19. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross- examination. The attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must reflect in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need to further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter when investigating officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of contradiction, it will then be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer who again by referring to the police statement will depose about the witness having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 66 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:36:55 +0530
55. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, when the material placed on record is conscientiously analyzed, it is observed that the prosecutrix has been consistent in her deposition, in so far as it relates to the incident in the month of October 2015, where the accused is asserted to have shown the complainant, her two obscene photographs on his mobile phone and threatened her to make physical relationship with him, failing which, the accused threatened the prosecutrix that the said obscene photographs would be forwarded by the accused to her/complainant's acquaintances. Needless to mention that not only did the prosecutrix make similar assertion in her complaint/statement tendered to the police official, rather, avowed on similar lines in her statement, recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Concomitantly, the prosecutrix has further withstood rigorous cross-examination by/on behalf of the accused. Here, it is further apposite to note that the accused, during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. asserted that he was falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant out of spite/malice, on the ground that in the year 2015, he had received several verbal complaints against the prosecutrix that she used to extort money from the local vendors sitting outside the Gurdwara premises and the accused had shifted her from the post of sewadar to look after the langar hall of Gurdwara. However, despite such assertion, the accused opted not to lead any evidence in his support. In fact, no such suggestion inter alia to the effect of the complainant's involvement in the incident of extorting money from the local vendors or that of her/complainant's being, consequently, transferred to langar hall of the Gurudwara were either posed to PW-2/prosecutrix or to PW-6/Yashpal Singh in their respective evidence before this Court.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 67 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:36:58 +0530
56. Consequently, considering the sterling nature of testimony of the prosecutrix in so far as it related to the incident of October 2015, where the accused is asserted to have shown the complainant, her two obscene photographs in his mobile phone and asked her to make physical relationship with him, failing which, he threatened the complainant to forward the said photographs to her acquaintances, ingredients of offences under Sections 354A, 506 and 509 IPC, in the considered opinion of this Court, are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Needless to further reiterate that the accused neither denied the ownership of the seized mobile phone nor of retrieval of such obscene photographs from the said mobile phone, few of which were identified by the complainant as her own. Needless to further mention that this Court has scrupulously analyzed the photographs and the CD containing the said photographs (Ex. P1) as well as the report of PW-8 (Ex. PW8/A(Colly.)) and other material placed on record to reach to the said conclusion. Correspondingly, it is observed by this Court that the defence raised by the accused, as aforenoted, finds no corroboration/credence from the testimony/evidence of any of the witness/defence witness. In so far as the ingredients of the said offences are concerned, from the material placed on record and the aforenoted judicial dictates, it is quite perceptible that the act of accused in showing the victim her obscene images and asking for sexual favors, besides, showing the victim such photographs against her will, falls under the domain of provisions under Section 354A(ii) and Section 354A(iii) IPC, respectively. Correspondingly, the act of the accused in threatening the complainant of circulating the said obscene images on her refusal to abide by his demands of sexual favour/physical relation as well as of the accused's exhibiting such obscene images to the SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 68 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:37:02 +0530 complainant/PW-2, thereby, intending the same to be seen by her, which intrudes her privacy, brings such act of the accused within the domains of offences under Section 506 IPC and Section 509 IPC, respectively. In fact, at this stage, this Court deems it pertinent to make a reference to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Gambhir v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl. Appeal 141/2025, dated 28.07.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Court, whilst being confronted with somewhat an akin situation, remarked, as under;
"...52. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that the accused morphed an image of the victim by using the body of another girl and sent the resulting obscene photograph to the victim, thereby depicting her in a sexually explicit manner. This act clearly amounts to showing pornography against the will of the victim and falls squarely within the offence defined under Section 354A(iii) of IPC. The repeated messages and attempts to contact the victim through electronic means, despite her resistance, constitute the offence of stalking under Section 354D of IPC. Furthermore, the indecent, vulgar, and obscene messages, morphed photographs, and WhatsApp chats sent to the victim, a minor school-going girl, were clearly intended to insult her modesty and intrude upon her privacy, thus attracting the offence under Section 509 of IPC. In addition, the threats extended to the victim, in case she did not comply with the accused's demands, are corroborated by the victim's testimony, the statement of her mother, the retrieved WhatsApp chats, and the FSL report, all of which substantiate the offence under Section 506 of IPC..."
(Emphasis supplied)
57. Further, in as much as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused pertaining to alleged delay in reporting the incident in concerned, this Court unambiguously records that from the material placed on record, it is seen that the victim, duly reported the incident, by means of a complaint (Ex. PW-2/C) to the concerned officials at Gurudwara Committee. However, finding no recourse/reparation, in the said proceedings, the complainant SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 69 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:37:06 +0530 proclaimed that she approached the concerned police officials by means of her instant complaint (Ex. PW2/A). Clearly, in under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no delay in the instant case. Even otherwise, the delay, if any, stands duly explained. Here, this Court deems it further pertinent to note in respect of the foregoing that this Court is conscious of the fact that the superior courts have persistently cautioned that in the instances of akin kind/incidents of sexual offences/involving modesty of woman, delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons, particularly, due to the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident, which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family, consequently, such delay(s) cannot be read against the prosecutrix of a case. In fact, in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dildar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 10 SCC 531, overtly explicated as under;
"6. ...A girl in a tradition-bound non-permissive society would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident, which is likely to reflect upon her chastity, had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society. Her not informing anyone about the incident in the circumstances cannot detract from her reliability. In normal course of human conduct an unmarried girl would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate such incident. Overpowered, as she may be, by a feeling of shame her natural inclination would be to avoid talking to anyone, lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy. Thus, delay in lodging the first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay and, if offered, whether it is satisfactory..."SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 70 of 73
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:37:09 (Emphasis supplied)
58. Clearly, upshot of the foregoing discussion is that ordinarily the family of victim of sexual offences or that pertaining to modesty or repute of a woman, tend to be hesitant in reporting the matter to the police, lest their life and family's reputation may be put to jeopardy. Ergo, under such circumstances, delay in lodging the first information report, if any, or non-reporting of the incident on earlier occasions is quite a normal phenomenon and cannot be read against a prosecutrix. In fact, many women also do not report such incidents under a fear that reporting, may lead to prejudice, ostracism and calamitous effects. Consequently, the courage eventually exhibited by a victim/prosecutrix to finally speak up, her travails cannot be shoved under the rug by questioning her on her past silence in every case. Rather, the valour finally exhibited by her needs to be appreciated and duly considered by Courts in the background of facts and circumstances of each case. As a corollary, mere lapse of time, if any, between the occurrence of an incident to that of reporting thereof by a prosecutrix to the concerned authorities or for earlier non-reporting of similar incidents cannot be the sole ground to outrightly discard her/the victim's version of incident. On the contrary, courts are duty bounded to consider and appreciate the facts leading up to such delay, in light of the factual scenario as well as the realities of the society. Even otherwise, this Court is conscious of the fact that no universal rule of conduct governs the behaviour of the victims/witnesses of incidents. As a matter of fact, it is quite compressible12, preceptors of a crime react differently under such situations; "some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from the scene and yet 12 Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 71 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.08.29 16:37:12 +0530
some who have the courage and conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get themselves examined immediately." Concomitantly, law does not prescribe a behavioural pattern to be attributed to a prosecutrix/victim of an offence to give sanctity to her entreaty for justice.
CONCLUSION:
59. Conclusively, in light of the foregoing discussion, it is reiterated that from the material placed on record and arguments addressed on behalf of the State as well as by/on behalf of the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the accused, namely, Bagga Singh for the offences under Sections 354A, 506 and 509 IPC, in so far as it relates to the accused showing two obscene photographs of the complainant to her in the month of October 2015 and threatening the complainant to make physical relations with him, failing which, the accused asserted that he would circulate the said photographs to the acquaintance of the complainant. However, it is reiterated that the allegations/charges under Sections 328, 354 and 354D IPC cannot be sustained against the accused, in view of the aforenoted discussion. Needless to mention at this stage that it is trite law 13 that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt against and accused and that an accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise. It is equally a settled law14 that in case where two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must be accepted.
13Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21.
14Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC 605 and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.
SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 72 of 73
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29
16:37:16
+0530
60. Accordingly, the accused namely, Bagga Singh is convicted of the charge(s)/offences under Sections 354A, 506 and 509 IPC. However, the accused is acquitted of charges under Sections 328, 354 and 354D IPC. Consequently, let the accused persons be heard on the aspect of sentence.
61. In the meanwhile, issue notice to SHO, PS. Kotwali to submit report of antecedents/previous involvements of the convict, Bagga Singh. Also, issue notice to concerned Jail Superintendent to submit conduct report and nominal roll of the said convict persons. Further, a copy of the present judgment is given dasti to the convict, namely, Bagga Singh. Needless to mention that compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) 1082/2020, dated 23.10.2024, has been carried out. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:37:22 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 29.08.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 73 of 73