Delhi District Court
State vs Prakash on 20 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 62779/2016
CNR No. -: DLWT020020252015
FIR No. -: 90/2014
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 294/354A/509 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
PRAKASH
S/o Shankar
R/o H.No. CS-1467, Bheel Basti,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat,
Delhi.
.... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Rajni Sharma
2. Name of Accused :- Prakash
Person
3. Offence complained of :- 294/354A/509 IPC
or proved
4. Plea of accused person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 04.03.2014
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 10.08.2015
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 23.03.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 20.04.2026
9. Final Order :- Acquitted
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.20
14:23:49 +0530
Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 1 of 29
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Nagendra Singh and Sh. Sanchit Sehgal,
Ld. Counsels for the accused person.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused person is that on 04.03.2014 at about 2:00 PM, the complainant namely Rajni Sharma was sitting at the temple in Punjabi Basti, where other women and girls were also present. It is further alleged that they were engaged in performing kirtan and at that time, a boy named Prakash (accused herein), who is a resident of Bhil Basti and whom the complainant already knew, came and stood on a hill in front of them. It is further alleged that when they noticed him, he removed his clothes and began performing obscene acts. It is further alleged that as soon as complainant told accused to remain there as they were coming towards him, he ran away from the spot. It is further alleged that the complainant, along with other women, searched for the accused but could not find him. As such it is alleged that the accused person namely Prakash has committed the offences punishable under sections 294/354A/509 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC). Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed against the accused person after completion of investigation on 10.08.2015, before the Ld. MM (Mahila Court-03), West, THC, for the offences punishable U/s 294/354A/509 of IPC.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSON
2. Accused person namely Prakash entered appearance Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:23:56 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 2 of 29 before this court and in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"), the accused person was supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied upon in the same.
3. Thereafter, the Ld. MM (Mahila Court-03), West, THC vide order dated 18.07.2017 discharged the accused for the offence punishable U/s 354A IPC and the case was transferred to the court of the then Ld. ACMM(W) by the Ld. CJM, West, THC vide order dated 31.07.2017.
3.1. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused person, a charge was framed for the offences punishable U/s 294/509 of IPC against the accused person namely Prakash on 01.04.2019. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused person to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- HC Rahul (Duty Officer) PW2 :- Rajni Sharma (Complainant) PW3 :- HC Kuldeep Singh (Accompanied 1st IO to the spot) PW4 :- Retd. SI Dalbir Singh (1st IO) PW5 :- W/SI Darshna (2nd IO) PW6 :- SI Manish Tyagi (3rd IO) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- DD No. 20A dated 04.03.2014 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 3 of 29 Ex. PW1/B :- Original FIR No. 90/2014 PS Anand (OSR) Parbat Ex. PW1/C :- Endorsement of rukka Ex. PW1/D :- Certificate U/s 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW2/A :- Statement of complainant Ex. PW2/B :- Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW2/C :- Personal search memo of accused Mark A :- Statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW4/A :- Tehreer Ex. PW4/B :- Site Plan ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC) Ex. AD-1 :- Statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC
5. HC Rahul (PW-1) is the duty officer in the present case and he has deposed regarding receiving of rukka through Const. Kuldeep sent by ASI Dalbir Singh as well as registration of present FIR on its basis. He was not cross-examined by the accused, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
6. Rajni Sharma (PW 2) is the complainant as well as eye witness in present case, who took the stand to depose that on 04.03.2014, at about 2:00 -2.30 pm, she along with some other ladies and girls were sitting inside the temple at Punjabi Basti. PW2 further deposed that they were performing/doing kirtan in the temple, suddenly, accused Prakash came and stood outside the temple on one hill. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, on seeing them, accused put off his clothes and started doing obscene gestures. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, she told accused to remain there but accused ran away from there. PW2 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:12 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 4 of 29 further deposed that thereafter, they made search for accused but could not find him and they made call at 100 number. PW2 further deposed that police official came there and recorded her statement Ex. PW2/A. PW2 further deposed that the accused was arrested and personally search vide memos Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. PW2 further deposed that police official also prepared site plan at her instance and her statement Mark A was also recorded before the Magistrate. The witness has correctly identified the accused in Court.
6.1. PW2 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State, after obtaining permission from the court, wherein she has admitted the fact that she had stated before the Magistrate that accused Prakash unzipped his pant and touched his private part and started doing obscene gestures.
6.2. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, Rajni Sharma (PW 2) has deposed that she had studied till 6th class. PW2 further admitted the fact that she does not remember the date and time of incident due to lapse of time. PW2 further deposed that she does not know whether IO had recorded statement of any other ladies who were present at the temple at the time of incident. PW2 denied the suggestion that no kirtan was taking place at the temple at the time of incident. PW2 admitted the fact that she had asked the accused to wait, however, the accused was trying to run from the spot. PW2 further deposed that she did not mention in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC before Ld. JMFC that she had asked the accused to wait, however, the accused was trying to run from the spot and had run to some distance. PW2 denied the suggestion Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:21 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 5 of 29 that she does not remember her statement that she gave before the police officials. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police officials on her dictation and she does not remember the exact mobile number from which, she made 100 number call, however, the said number had digits 69 in the end. PW2 further deposed that she did not mention in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC that 100 number call was made after the incident. She voluntarily deposed that she had not made the 100 number call and the call was made by some other person present at the spot. PW2 further deposed that she does not remember the name of the person who made 100 number call. She further deposed that the temple is at the distance of 15 minutes from the pahari area and she knows accused Prakash since when he was a child. PW2 further deposed that she never had any argument or fight with accused prior to the incident.
6.3. PW2 denied the suggestion that prior to the incident, she had a fight with accused with respect to water tank situated in the area and she had threatened the accused after the said fight. Upon confrontation with statement Ex. PW 2/A, from portion A to Al, PW2 denied the suggestion that after the incident, the accused had run away from the spot and she along with other persons present at the spot had made efforts to search for the accused but they were unable to find him. She voluntarily stated that she with the help of persons present at the spot had apprehended the accused from some distance from the spot after he was trying to run. PW2 further deposed that IO did not prepare any site plan in her presence. PW2 further denied the suggestion that there is a toilet situated between the pahari area and temple. She further deposed that after the incident; she went ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:28 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 6 of 29 to PS one or two times. PW2 further deposed that she did not sign on any blank papers at the PS. She further deposed that she did not read the papers before signing the same. PW2 further denied the suggestion that she signed the papers without knowing its contents. She voluntarily deposed that police official had read the contents of the documents to her before her signing. PW2 further deposed that she did not sign on arrest memo. She further deposed that IO had recorded the statement of the person who made 100 number call in her presence. PW2 further denied the suggestion that she has filed the present case falsely against the accused because of the previous enmity between her and accused. PW2 further denied the suggestion that she has threatened the accused that she will implicate him in a false case because of previous enmity. PW2 also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
7. HC Kuldeep Singh (PW 3) accompanied the IO in present case and he was examined in chief on 22.09.2022 wherein he sated on oath that on 04.03.2014, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as Const. and on that day, DD No. 20A was marked to ASI Dalbir Singh for investigation. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, he along with ASI Dalbir Singh went to the spot i.e., house No. A-74, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, backside of Holy Chowk, Anand Parbat, Delhi where they met the complainant namely Rajni Sharma and IO recorded her statement. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, IO prepared tehreer and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR, accordingly, he left the spot and went the PS Anand Parbat for registration of FIR. PW3 further deposed that after getting FIR registered, he returned back at the spot and handed over the copy ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:36 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 7 of 29 of FIR and original tehreer to the IO. PW3 further deposed that IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and thereafter, the complainant took them to the house of accused Prakash which was situated at CS-1467, Bheel Basti, Anand Parbat, where they found accused present. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, IO interrogated accused and after interrogation he was arrested and personally searched vide memos already Ex.PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, accused was brought to PS and he took accused to Lady Hardinge Medical College for his medical examination. He further deposed that thereafter; he handed over the accused to IO. The witness has correctly identified the accused Prakash in the Court.
7.1. In cross-examination, HC Kuldeep Singh (PW
3) has deposed that he does not remember the mobile number from which he received PCR call on 04.03.2014. PW3 further deposed that he went to the spot along with the IO on their private motorcycle and he does not remember the registration number and registered owner of the motorcycle. PW3 further deposed that however, the motorcycle belonged to ASI Dalbir Singh. PW3 further deposed that they left PS at about 2:00 - 2:30 P.M. and they reached at the spot within 10 minutes of leaving from the PS. PW3 further deposed that the spot is at a distance of 1Kms from the PS. PW3 further deposed that he left with tehrir on private motorcycle for registration of FIR at about 03:30 P.M. and he stayed at PS for approximately 10-15 minutes and thereafter came back at the spot with the copy of registered FIR. PW3 further deposed that the statement of complainant Ms. Rajni Sharma was recorded at the spot. PW3 further deposed that IO ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:43 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 8 of 29 asked public persons to join the investigation however no one agreed and left the spot without disclosing their name and address. PW3 further deposed that IO did not give any notice to public persons for joining the investigation in his presence. PW3 further deposed that he has signed the site plan. PW3 was confronted with site plan exhibited as Ex.PW4/B and on seeing the same the witness stated that it does not bear his signature. PW3 further deposed that he does not remember who all signed the site plan and he stayed at the spot till 5 P.M. PW3 further deposed that IO prepared the disclosure statement, recorded the statements U/s 161 CrPC at the spot. Upon questioned about the fact as to whether disclosure statement was recorded before preparation of arrest memo, the witness deposed that disclosure statement was recorded prior to arrest of accused. PW3 further deposed that the accused was arrested from his house which was at a distance of 500 meters from the spot. PW3 further deposed that he does not remember the time when the accused was arrested and he does not remember when we reached at the house of the accused. PW3 further deposed that after arrest accused was taken for his medical examination and he was not taken directly to the PS. PW3 further deposed that he does not remember documents prepared at the PS. PW3 further deposed that he does not remember when we reached at the PS along with the accused. PW3 further deposed that he does not remember the exact time when the arrest memo of accused was prepared. PW3 denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. PW3 further denied the suggestion that entire investigation was conducted while sitting at the PS. PW3 further denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. PW3 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 9 of 29 further denied the suggestion that he did not sign any document during the investigation. PW3 also denied the suggestion that deposing falsely.
8. Retd. SI Dalbir Singh (PW 4) is the 1st IO, who took the stand to depose that on 04.03.2014, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as an ASI and on that day, DD No. 20A was marked to him for investigation. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, he along with Const. Kuldeep went to the spot i.e., House No. A-74, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, backside of Holy Chowk, Anand Parbat, Delhi where they met the complainant namely Rajni Sharma. PW4 further deposed that he recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A and prepared tehreer Ex.PW4/A and handed over the same to Const. Kuldeep for registration of FIR. PW4 further deposed that accordingly, Const. Kuldeep left the spot and went the PS Anand Parbat for registration of FIR. PW4 further deposed that after getting FIR registered, Const. Kuldeep returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehreer to him. PW4 further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B at the instance of complainant. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, the complainant took them to the house of accused Prakash which was situated at CS-1467, Bheel Basti, Anand Parbat, where they found accused present. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, he interrogated accused and after interrogation he was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, accused was brought to PS. PW4 further deposed that Const. Kuldeep took accused to Lady Hardinge Medical College for his medical examination. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, Const. Kuldeep handed over the accused to him and thereafter.
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:24:58 +0530
Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 10 of 29
accused was sent to lockup and on the next day, accused was produced before the Court and from there he was sent to JC. PW4 further deposed that during investigation, statement U/s 164 CrPC of complainant was got recorded before the Ld. Magistrate and thereafter, further investigation was handed over to someone else as he got transferred. The witness has correctly identified the accused in Court.
8.1. Retd. SI Dalbir Singh (PW 4) was cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person wherein he has deposed that he reached at the spot at around 2:40 PM and he met complainant Rajni Sharma at the spot. PW4 further deposed that no lady was present at the spot when he reached there except the complainant. PW4 further deposed that he remained at the spot till about 5:00 PM and prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. PW4 further deposed that he had prepared the documents while sitting at the spot. PW4 denied the suggestion that accused did not do any obscene act or that did not unzip his pant in public place. PW4 further denied the suggestion that accused did not insult the modesty of complainant by making obscene gestures. PW4 further denied the suggestion that accused did not make any obscene gesture. PW4 further denied the suggestion that many ladies were present at the spot when he reached there but he did not record the statement of any other woman or lady except the complainant. PW4 further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
9. W/SI Darshna Dass (PW5) is the 2nd IO, who took the stand to depose that on 03.12.2014, she was posted at PS Anand Parbat as an ASI and on that day, further investigation ofDigitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:25:05 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 11 of 29 present case was marked to her. PW5 further deposed that during investigation, she tried to search any other eye witness to the incident but could not find any other eye witness except the complainant. PW5 further deposed that during investigation, she came to know that the other ladies who were performing kirtan in the temple had left the place as most of them were tenants. PW5 further deposed that thereafter, she prepared the challan and sent it to the Prosecution department for scrutiny. PW5 further deposed that in the meantime, she was transferred and further investigation was marked to someone else.
9.1. PW5 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused wherein she has deposed that she does not remember whether any separate entry with regard to handing over the investigation to her was made in any register or not. PW5 further deposed that she had visited the house of the complainant namely Rajni. PW5 further deposed that the complainant did not tell the name or contact number of the ladies who were performing kirtan along with the complainant. She voluntarily deposed that the complainant was not aware the name or contact number of those ladies. PW5 further deposed that she had not visited the/place where the incident happened. PW5 further deposed that she did not inquire from the priest of the temple till the time the investigation remained with her. PW5 further deposed that she did not conduct any written proceedings during her investigation. She voluntarily deposed that she had mentioned all the facts in her case diary. PW5 denied the suggestion that she had not carried out any investigation in the present case or that she is deposing falsely.
Digitally signed byANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:25:11 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 12 of 29
10. SI Manish Tyagi (PW6) is the 3rd IO, who took the stand to depose that on 08.04.2015, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as SI and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. PW6 further deposed that he inspected the file and after inspection he added section 509 IPC against the accused in the present case. He further deposed that thereafter he concluded his investigation and submitted the charge-sheet before the Court. The witness correctly identified the accused in Court.
10.1. PW6 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused wherein he has deposed that he had not visited the spot during my investigation. He further deposed that he had not inquired anything from any witness. PW6 denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the fair investigation or that he is deposing falsely.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON
11. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of accused person was recorded without oath on 15.01.2026 under section 313 CrPC. He stated that he is innocent and belongs to ST Caste. He further stated that there was a confrontation between him and the complainant, regarding the water tanker issued in their locality and because of same, she threatened him that she will falsely implicate him and as such he has been falsely implicated in present case. The accused further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:25:18 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 13 of 29 ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsels for the accused person at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration of the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that PW2/complainant has been consistent about the facts of incident. It is further argued that PW2/complainant and PW3 have deposed that the home of accused was near to the place of incident and the arrest memo as well as personal search memo of accused are of same date as the date of incident. It is further argued that from the site plan it is revealed that the place of incident i.e., the temple, marked as "A" is about 100 metres away from the hill, which is marked as "B". Further, the other evidence on record has corroborated the version of the eyewitness and the offences are proved beyond any doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be punished for the said offences.
14. Per contra, Ld. Counsels for the accused person have argued that the accused has been falsely implicated, in present case, as he had a dispute with the complainant regarding water tanker. It is further argued that PW2/complainant has mentioned in her complaint as well as in her testimony that there were other ladies/girls, at the time of incident, but none of such ladies/girls has been cited as a witness by the prosecution. It is further argued that the complainant in her cross-examination has admitted that she has mentioned in her statement U/s 164 CrPC that she had asked the accused to wait and further she was not ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:25:24 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 14 of 29 able to depose about the name of person who made a call at 100 number. It is further argued that PW1/complainant in her examination in chief has deposed that the accused ran away from the spot, whereas in her cross examination she has deposed that the accused was apprehended after some distance from the spot. It is further argued that the complainant has deposed that the temple is at distance of 15 minutes from Pahari area. It is further argued that PW2 has deposed that accused was apprehended after some distance from the spot, whereas PW3 has deposed that the accused was arrested from his house. Further it is argued that PW2/complainant has deposed that the accused was apprehended with the help of public persons at the spot, whereas PW3 has deposed that complainant took them to house of accused and after that accused was arrested. It is further argued that no public persons have been cited as witnesses in the present case by the prosecution. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden casted upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused person be acquitted for the said offences.
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. The accused person has been charged for the offences of causing annoyance to others by doing an obscene act in a public place (S. 294 IPC) and intending to insult the modesty of a woman by any word, gesture or act (S. 509 IPC). In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused person has done an obscene act in a public place, to cause annoyance to others as well as by his act has intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Digitally signed byANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:25:31 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 15 of 29
16. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 294 & 509 of IPC, which are as follows:
"294. Obscene acts and songs --Whoever, to the annoyance of others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, 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 words, 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.
17. With respect to the mandatory ingredients, which are required to be proved by the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubts, for the offence punishable under section 294 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Anr 1996 SCC (4) 17 held as follows: -
"In order to secure a conviction the provision requires two particulars to be proved by the prosecution, i.e. (i) the offender has done any obscene act in any public place or has sung, recited or uttered any obscene songs or words in or near any public place; and
(ii) has so caused annoyance to others. If the act complained of is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not obscene, or is not sung, recited or uttered in or near any public place, or that it causes no annoyance to others, the offence is not committed."
17.1. Thus, for proving the offence punishable U/s 294 IPC, it becomes important to discuss the meaning of word "obscene". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment titled Sivakumar vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police 2026 INSC 318 while explaining the word "obscene" has held as under: -
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:25:37 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 16 of 29 "...18. The word "obscene" is not specifically defined in IPC. However, by referring to Section 292 of IPC, it has been construed as something which has the potential to appeal to prurient interest of a person.1
19. In Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.2 , this Court, by referring to Section 292 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, observed:
"17. It is evident that "obscenity" has been similarly defined in Section 292 and Section 67 as material which is:
(i) lascivious; or
(ii) appeals to the prurient interest; or
(iii) its effect tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."
Besides, it was observed, obscenity must be judged having regard to contemporary mores and national standards. Additionally, it was observed:
"41. ... It is well established (as per para 41, SCC) from the precedents cited that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity. While a person may find vulgar and expletive-filled language to be distasteful, unpalatable, uncivil, and improper, that by itself is not sufficient to be "obscene".
Obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts, which is not at all the effect of the abusive language or profanities that have been employed in the episode. Rather, such language may evoke disgust, revulsion, or shock. ..." ..."
18. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 509 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. intention on the part of an accused to insult the modesty of a woman; and ii. that the insult must be caused by;
a. uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or 1 See: Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan & Others v. Anand Patwardhan & Another, (2006) 8 SCC 433. Digitally signed by 2 ANKUR (2024) 6 SCC 181.
ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 14:25:44 Date: 2026.04.20 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 17 of 29 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.
18.1. 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."
19. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of the innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point towards the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
20. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 14:25:51 Date: 2026.04.20 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 18 of 29 of the opinion that the points for determination in the present case are:
I. Whether on 04.03.2014, at about 02.00 P.M., ah House No. A-74, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, backside of Holi Chowk, Anand Parbat, the accused intentionally did an obscene act by unzipping his pant, in public place and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 294 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
II. Whether on 04.03.2014, at about 02.00 P.M., ah House No. A-74, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, backside of Holi Chowk, Anand Parbat the accused insulted the modesty of complainant by making obscene gestures and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 509 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
21. Evidence of Prosecutrix - The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the complainant namely Rajni Sharma as PW-2, who is the star witness of the prosecution. This it becomes important here to discuss the lens with which the testimony of prosecutrix is to be evaluated. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision of Hon'ble Apex 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, has observed as follows;
"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 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:25:58 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 19 of 29 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."
21.1. Furthermore, 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..."
21.2. 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 the prosecutrix. In fact, even on a general principle, it has been recurrently held 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 that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. As such, it is in this light that the evidence of prosecutrix is to be examined.
22. Contradictions and Inconsistencies - It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused person that there are material contradictions in the testimony of complainant. Thus, it becomes pertinent to discuss the law regarding appreciation of evidence of a witness in case there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of the said witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out in a catena of judgments that minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the matter, are of no Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:26:05 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 20 of 29 consequence. In Brahm Swaroop vs. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288, it was observed, inter alia, as under -
"32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions."
Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See: State of UP vs. MK Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381, State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 and Prithu vs. State of HP (2009) 11 SCC 588)"
22.1. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the reliability of testimony of an injured witness in light of contradictions and discrepancies in State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, has observed as under -
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash 14:26:14 +0530 Page 21 of 29 therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] )"
22.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors [2023] 14 S.C.R. 85: 2023 INSC 957, has observed as under -
"... In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court had held 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."
22.3. The three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 09th January, 2025 in a case titled as Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011) [2025] 1 S.C.R. 657: 2025 INSC 47 has held that:
53. To the same effect it was also observed in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241 as follows:
"13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash ANKUR Page 22 of 29 Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:26:33 +0530 matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] observed : [SCC p. 756, para 8 : SCC (Cri) p. 824, para 8]..."
22.4. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi very recently on 31st October, 2025 in the case titled State vs. Ram Swaroop & Ors. in CRL.A. 969/2002 held that:
14. Reference in this context can also be made to another judgment in State of U.P. V. Naresh and Ors. 2011 AD (SC) 20 wherein it was observed in the following words:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicit a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there were grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
15. The discrepancies/contradictions/improvements which are not material cannot discredit the testimony of an injured witness as was observed in the case titled as Vinod Tyagi & Ors. Vs. State 2013 IV AD (Delhi) 145.
16. Human memory has its own peculiar limitations of retaining, recapitulating, narrating and reiterating etc. It varies from person to person, event to event and from time to time etc. A person may very meticulously and vividly remember certain events, occurrences, persons or acts depending upon his own capacity, the importance attached to the persons, events, time, places, etc. Those very aspects may be too trivial for another person and Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:26:40 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 23 of 29 therefore, little or no memory would be there. It is common that narration of events, etc. varies not only from person to person but the same person may not be able to recall and reiterate a particular thing/event, person/incident with the same precision and chronological order as was the first or the previous narrative was. This does not mean that the person was not privy to the event narrated, as long as the essential aspect remains intact and alive. A slip here or there or mix up about certain aspects would not rob the strength of the narration as long as the inference and impact of the narrative remains unadulterated and unaltered.
17. The discrepancies/inconsistencies etc. are required to evaluated in the real world in real life situations, where minor and trivial ones are to be ignored. A mix up in the face and name, some minor mix up in chronological narrative, time gap, exact timings which document prepared, where and signed by whom first, so on and so forth are not potent enough to uproot the testimony of a witness, if the soul of the narrative remains intact. In this context reference can be made to the judgment State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr reported in 1981 SCC (2) 752, it was held as under:
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person."
In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl.A. 25-26/2000), the Apex Court held as under:
"Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW.2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness. There is bound to be some Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:26:46 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 24 of 29 discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence."
23. The complainant has stated in her compliant, lodged on the same date of incident, that the accused removed his clothes and began performing obscene acts, while standing on a hill in front of them. Thereafter, the statement of complainant was record U/s 164 CrPC, during the course of investigation, before the Ld. female Magistrate on 12.08.2104, wherein the complainant did not mention the date of incident and has stated that accused removed his pants and touched his private part as well as started doing ulti seedhi harkatein. Furthermore, in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC the complainant has not mentioned anything regarding the fact that the accused was standing on the hill. Thereafter, the complainant was examined in chief, almost after 05 years of the date of incident and it is also taken into consideration that the complainant has studied till 6 th class. In her examination in chief the complainant has deposed about the date of incident as well as presence of accused on hill. The complainant has further deposed regarding the fact that accused put off his clothes and started doing obscene gestures. The complainant has not mentioned anything about removal of pants by the accused and touching his private part and therefore, she was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for State and thereafter, she admitted the fact she had stated in her statement recorded u/s Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:26:52 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 25 of 29 164 CrPC regarding unzipping of pant, touching his private part and making obscene gestures.
24. However, due to the reasons mentioned hereinafter, the testimony of complainant does not inspire confidence and there are contradictions in her testimony that goes at the root of case of prosecution. One of the major contradictions in the testimony of complainant is that she has deposed that the accused was apprehended after he was trying of run with help of public persons, who were present at spot, whereas PW3/HC Kuldeep Singh has deposed that accused was arrested from his house and complainant took him to house of accused. Furthermore, perusal of arrest memo Ex. PW2/B reveals that it mentions the place of arrest of accused as CS-1467, Bheel Basti, Anand Parbat i.e., house of accused and the arrest memo is signed by complainant. Thus, the testimony of complainant regarding the fact that the accused was apprehended near the spot with the help of public persons does not inspire confidence.
25. The complainant has further deposed that the site plan Ex. PW4/B was not prepared in her presence and the same is corroborated by the fact that the site plan Ex. PW4/B does not bear signatures of the complainant. It creates a dent in the case of prosecution, as the site plan was not prepared at the instance of complainant, who is the only eye witness of present case. Since the site plan does not have signatures of complainant and the complainant has deposed that it was not prepared in her presence, the place of incident also falls under the cloud of doubt as the complainant in her cross-examination has deposed that the temple is at distance of 15 minutes from the pahari area.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:26:58 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 26 of 29
26. It is not the case of prosecution that there were no public persons at the place of incident. Rather, the complaint itself states that the complainant was present along with other women and girls. It becomes pertinent here to discuss illustration
(g) of section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the Court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. PW3/HC Kuldeep has also deposed that IO asked public persons to join the investigation however no one agreed and left the spot without disclosing their name and address. PW3 further deposed that IO did not give any notice to public persons for joining the investigation in his presence. Furthermore, PW2/complainant has also deposed that the accused was apprehended with the help of public persons, but arrest memo does bear any signatures/names/details of such public persons. The explanation regarding non joining of public persons was furnished by PW5/W/SI Darshna who is the 2 nd IO and to whom investigation was marked on 03.12.2014. PW5 has stated that she tried to search for eye witness, but perusal of her testimony reveals that efforts were made by her after 08 months of incident and no explanation has been furnished as to why so much delay was there. It is a well settled proposition that non joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Thus, when the testimony of complainant does not inspire confidence, the prosecution should have examined other ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:27:03 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 27 of 29 public persons/eye witnesses in support of its case, so as to prove the case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts.
27. Official witnesses - The police officials examined by the prosecution include the first responders and the officials who investigated the case. These witnesses have deposed about the events that unfolded pursuant to the incident. The police witnesses are only relevant to prove the investigation conducted after the incident. The version of these witnesses generally corroborates the claims of the public witness.
28. Defence of accused - The accused person in his statements recorded U/s 313 CrPC have stated that he is innocent and belongs to ST Caste. He further stated that there was a confrontation between him and the complainant, regarding the water tanker issued in their locality and because of same, she threatened him that she will falsely implicate him.
29. In the present matter, as noted above, the accused person has been successful to shake the case of prosecution by creating dents in case of prosecution. As such, on the basis of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses especially the complainant does not inspire confidence.
CONCLUSION
30. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of the offences beyond any iota of doubt. This Court hold that the required threshold has not been met by the prosecution and it has not been able to successfully prove that the accused person has committed the offences under Section 294/509 IPC. The accused person has been successful inANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:27:11 +0530 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 28 of 29 punching holes on material aspects in the case set up by the prosecution. The inconsistencies brought out by the accused person in the case of the prosecution are major and goes to the root of the matter.
31. Resultantly, the accused person namely PRAKASH S/o Shankar is hereby found not guilty and is accordingly ACQUITTED of the offences punishable under sections 294/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
32. Case property, if any, be disposed off as per law if not already done.
33. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 20.04.2026 in the presence of the accused person. The judgment contains 29 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed byANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.20 14:27:17 +0530 (ANKUR PANGHAL) JMFC-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 20/04/2026 Cr. Case No. 62779/16 State vs. Prakash Page 29 of 29