Delhi District Court
Shakotla Mishra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
CRL. APPEAL No. 85/2024
CNR No. : DLST01-001773-2024
Shakotla Mishra
S/o Sh. Lalan Mishra
R/o 395/13, First Floor,
Chander Quarter, Rampura,
Delhi - 110035 ...Appellant/Convict
Versus
The State Of NCT Of Delhi
Through SHO, ...Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.03.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 27.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by appellant/convict, thereby assailing the judgment dated 31.01.2023, whereby appellant was convicted for offence U/s 509 IPC and order on sentence dated 14.11.2018 vide which he was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for six months for said offence, both passed by the Ld. Purshotam CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Pathak Page no. 1 of 15 Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.03.11 17:11:50 +0530 Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court-01), South, Saket, in case bearing CR. Cases No. 5898/2018, FIR No. 33/2018, PS Ghitorni Metro, titled as "State Vs. Shakotla Mishra".
2. Succinctly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 16.11.2018 on receipt of DD no. 3A, information was received regarding misbehave with a girl at Chattarpur Metro Station. SI Ranbir Singh reached at the spot i.e. Chattarpur Metro Station and found complainant and accused present there. Complainant gave a written complaint stating therein that she is 18 years and 11 months old and is student of BA (J&MC), LLDIMS, GGSIPU. She stated in her complaint that on 16.11.2018 while traveling from INA Metro Station to Huda City Center, in between Qutub Minar and Chattarpur, she encountered the accused, pulling down zip of his jeans and showing her his dick (male private part). With the help of other boys who were near him tackled the accused and brought the incident to the notice of the DMRC Staff. She prayed for legal action stating that she cannot forgive him. On the complaint of the complainant, FIR No. 33 dated 16.11.2018, U/s 509 IPC was registered against the appellant/convict which culminated into filing of charge sheet U/s 509 IPC on conclusion of investigation. The appeal has been filed well within its limitation period.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.11
17:11:55
+0530
CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 2 of 15
3. During trial, Charge U/s 509/354A (1)(i) IPC was framed against convict on 29.01.2019. Five prosecution witnesses including complainant, DMRC staff and police officials were examined in evidence. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., convict took the defence as under:
"On the fateful day, I was sitting in the Delhi Metro on a seat which was reserved for senior citizens and the complainant asked me to get up from the seat by pointing a senior citizen who was standing nearby. I had looked at the person she was pointed to and felt that he was not uncomfortable and who had not asked me to vacate seat for him, therefore, I kept sitting because on that day, I was upset regarding a business transaction which went bad. I was mentally disturbed on that day, therefore, I kept sitting. However, she made me get up and herself sat on the seat and started making nasty comments about me saying that "bihari hai bihari hai". Thereafter, on hearing her nasty comment I also comment back upon her and said "tum bewakoof ho" whereafter a verbal altercation ensued between us and she created a ruckus and created a false story against me. It is a false case. All the witnesses are interested."
4. Appellant/convict chose not to lead defence evidence. On conclusion of trial, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023, Ld. Trial Court convicted the appellant/convict for offence U/s 509 IPC and vide impugned order on sentence dated 05.02.2024, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
5. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment on conviction dated 31.01.2023 and order on sentence, dated 05.02.2024, Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 17:12:00 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi +0530 Page no. 3 of 15 appellant/convict assailed the same on the following grounds:
(a) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate and evaluate the evidence and has mechanically convicted the appellant;
(b) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC does not stand satisfied from the prosecution story;
(c) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant has failed to prove the incident in evidence and no scientific, medical or electronic evidence has been proved;
(d) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the alleged incident pertains to Metro Train which is fully covered with CCTV footage and IO despite going through the CCTV footage has not proved the same and even did not placed the same on record. The CCTV footage of metro was not examined as it was not according to the version of the complainant;
(e) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per the complainant, there were many public persons / passengers at the time of incident who helped her, however, none of such independent public witness was examined in evidence and entire case is based on the sole testimony of complainant;
Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 17:12:05 +0530 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 4 of 15
(f) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the important ingredient of Section 509 IPC essential of conviction is intention of the appellant/convict which is missing in the case;
(g) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are numerous inconsistencies / contradictions in the testimony of complainant and her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the appellant/convict as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
7. Ld. counsel for the appellant/convict has argued on the lines of the grounds taken by him in the revision petition. It is argued that neither there is any independent witness to the incident nor there is any electronic evidence in form of CCTV footage. It is further argued that prosecution story does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC. It is argued that there are material inconsistencies in the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant as compared to her testimony. It is argued that appellant/convict deserves benefit of doubt and is liable to be acquitted.
8. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted the appellant/convict has committed a serious crime of molesting a women by dirty gestures. It is submitted that Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 17:12:09 +0530 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 5 of 15 the grounds raised by the appellant/convict in the instant appeal have already been dealt by the Ld. Trial Court. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment/order.
9. In the present case, no doubt that there is absence of independent witness or CCTV footage to support the case of the prosecution, however, at the same time, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be negated or brushed aside only because of absence of such evidence. Though in addition to offence U/s 509 IPC, appellant/convict was also charged for offence U/s 354A (1) (I) of IPC, however, due to lack of credible evidence to prove the same, he was acquitted for said offence. The appellant/convict in the present case has only been convicted for offence U/s 509 IPC. An offence under Section 509 IPC also deals with the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman similar to Section 354 IPC. Section 509, IPC reads as under-
"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 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 one year or with fine or with both."
10. On a bare reading of this Section, it is clear that for an offence to fall within the purview of Section 509 IPC, it Digitally signed by Purshotam Page no. 6 of 15 Purshotam Pathak CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 17:12:14 +0530 must have been committed with the intention to insult the basic modesty of any woman or to intrude upon the privacy of that woman. Intention is thus an essential ingredient.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. In order to sustain conviction, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In the instant case, complainant (PW-1) is the star witness of the prosecution and whole case depends upon her testimony. Perusal of her testimony reveals that she has gone whole hog with the prosecution version. In her testimony, she has categorically deposed about the entire incident in a consistent manner. Having deposed about the facts, she testified that on 16.11.2018 at about 05.30 PM, while she was sitting and traveling in Metro from Delhi Cantt to Huda City Center, appellant/convict stood in front of her and unzipped his pant and flashed his private part towards her. Complainant further deposed that when she shouted on appellant/convict 'Is this the way to travel?', he Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 17:12:21 Page no. 7 of 15 +0530 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi hid his genitals with his bag and with the help of few people around her, she took the appellant/convict to CISF and then to DMRC Control Room. Complainant proved her complaint Ex. PW 1/A, her statement Ex. PW 1/C and the arrest memo Ex. PW1/B.
13. Despite extensive cross examination, complainant/CW1 consistently reiterated the incident of molestation committed by appellant/convict in metro by unzipping his pant and flashing his private part to her while standing in front of her seat. Appellant/convict has taken the defence that the quarrel took place between him and complainant as she on the pretext of asking seat for a senior citizen person, made him stand and herself sat on the said seat, which fact was later converted into present case. Complainant has categorically testified that no one in the said metro was known to her and she was sitting on the seat. Hence, the issue of dispute between her or the convict doesn't arise at all, which is the defence taken by the appellant/convict.
14. It does not appear plausible and convincing that complainant who was around 18-19 years of age at that point of time would unnecessarily blame appellant/convict who was around 35 years of age with such serious allegations of molestation only for issue of getting seat in metro. It may be mentioned that complainant has Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 17:12:27 +0530 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 8 of 15 categorically deposed that when she objected to the dirty act of appellant/convict of flashing his private part, he covered the same with his bag and when public intervened by removing his bag, they could also see the same. The statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C of the complainant appears to be consistent with her deposition wherein she deposed as under:-
"I was traveling from metro from INA to Huda City Center. I was sitting in one of the corner seats. There was a man standing in front of me. After few minutes he unzipped his pants and put out his male genitals. As soon as he noticed that I saw him, he put his bag to cover it. I stood up and asked him to remove his bag. The other passengers also asked as to what had happened and I told them about it. They also asked him to remove his bag. When he removed his bag, they also saw what he was doing. Then we got down and took him to the DMRC and reported to CISF. He accepted before the police and CISF for what he did and begged for apology."
15. Perusal of the testimony of PW 5 Karan Singh Meena, who was working as Controller DMRP at Chattarpur Metro station on 16.11.2018 supported the version of the complainant. PW5 testified that complainant along with few persons brought the appellant/convict in control room with allegation that appellant unzipped his pant and tried to show his private part to her. He categorically stated that appellant/convict at that time was scared and puzzled and he correctly identified the appellant/convict in the Court. He further testified that the female aggrieved was saying "isko saja milni chahiye".
Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.03.11 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi 17:12:32 +0530 Page no. 9 of 15
16. The testimony of PW5 is consistent and supportive of the PW1/complainant and except minor contradictions, nothing material defeating the case of the prosecution could be surfaced despite exhaustive cross examination of these witnesses. In the statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., appellant/convict has taken an all together different defence that complainant asked him to vacate seat for a senior citizen but he did not vacate the seat because he was upset regarding a business transaction which went bad. It is the self admission of the appellant/convict that at the time of incident he was mentally disturbed on that day and that he had verbal altercation with the complainant. In the instant matter, the appellant has misbehaved with the complainant by unzipping his pant and flashing his private part towards her by standing in front of her seat, which shows dirtiest and cheapest nature of molestation, committed by the appellant/convict. The actions of the appellant/convict are such that would shock the sense of decency of a woman and clearly amounts to intentional insult to the modesty of the complainant.
17. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict has contended that despite the place of incident being a public place, no public witness was examined. However, I do not find any force in such contention as non-investigation with regard to public witnesses cannot go to the root of the matter and benefit of defect in investigation cannot be given to the accused. It is Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 17:12:37 +0530 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 10 of 15 common to find that public persons do not wish to drag into any controversy. There is general reluctance to be cited as witness and people do not wish to be summoned by court and to render their testimony before a court of law. Owing to the fear of courts and a misconception that the witnesses would be subjected to harassment, people do not wish to come forward to narrate their version even though they may have witnessed the incident. Merely because the public persons seldom come forward does not imply that version of the victim should be ignored or deprived of due credit. In the case of Appa Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 696, it has been held as under:-
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the murder that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil disputes are between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore that this handicapped with which the investigating agencies have to discharge its duties. The court therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the spectrum or the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused."
18. The counsel for the accused has argued that there are material contradictions/inconsistencies which go to the Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.11 CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi 17:12:43 +0530 Page no. 11 of 15 root of the case on account of which, the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the appellant/convict. So far as the alleged minor discrepancy in the version of testimonies of PW1 is concerned, none of the such contradictions has been specifically pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for appellant/convict during the course of arguments, is of such nature so as to go into the root of the matter. The said minor contradictions does not corrode the credibility of the victim, therefore, the same cannot be dubbed as contradictions so as to brush aside the case of prosecution unworthy of credence. Small contradictions by themselves are no reason to throw the case out. Ld. Counsel for the accused has failed to point out any material contradiction in the testimony of witness or in the prosecution case, so as to render the same unreliable. In the present case the testimony of the complainant is cogent and convincing.
19. It has been held time and again that discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the testimony. Proof of guilt can be sustained despite little infirmities. [Narotam Singh Vs. State 1978 Cr. L. J. 1612 (SC)]. No undue importance can be attached to such discrepancies if they do not go to the root of the matter and do not shake the basic version of witnesses. [Lallan Vs. State1990 Cr. L. J. 463]. It was ruled in Ramni Vs. State, [Judgment Today 1999(6) SC 247] that all discrepancies are not capable of affecting the Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi 2026.03.11 17:12:48 Page no. 12 of 15 +0530 credibility of witnesses. Similarly, all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impair the credit of a witness. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752 (FB) observed as under:-
"In the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however honest and truthful they may be. Those discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental deposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected from a normal person. "
20. On careful appraisal of the evidence led on the record of the Trial court, I am of the considered view that the guilt of the appellant/convict has been duly brought home beyond all manner of doubts. The prosecution evidence in general, and the testimony of PW1 and PW5 in particular, inspire confidence. Perusal of impugned judgment further shows that Ld. Trial court has dealt with essential ingredients of offences punishable under section 509 IPC. The Trial court has analyzed and appreciated the testimony of witnesses and observed that PW-1 has supported the case of prosecution.
21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance proved by the prosecution during trial, I am of the considered view that appellant/convict has been rightly convicted for the offence U/s 509 IPC vide impugned judgment dated Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi 2026.03.11 17:12:54 Page no. 13 of 15 +0530 31.01.2023. The reasoning given by Ld. Trial Court while convicting the accused for said offences is just and proper and I find no reason for setting aside the same.
22. As regards, order on sentence dated 05.02.2024, it can be seen that Ld. Trial Court has already taken very lenient view by imposing minimal punishment of simple imprisonment of 6 months against the maximum provided punishment of 3 years. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment on conviction dated 31.01.203 and order on sentence dated 05.02.2024 stands upheld. Appellant is taken into judicial custody to suffer the substantive sentence of six months.
23.Since the matter pertains to offences of sexual harassment, the name of victim has not been provided in the present judgment and since the victim is the complainant herein her name has also not been provided in the title of the judgment. The Ahlmad and the computer branch shall take necessary steps to mask the name of victim on the CIS.
24. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the appellant/convict and TCR along with one copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.11
17:12:59
+0530
CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 14 of 15
25. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.11
17:13:04
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
11th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 15 signed pages) CA No. 85/2024, Shakotla Mishra VS. State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 15 of 15