Delhi District Court
Yogesh And Anr vs State And Ors on 13 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO. DLCT01-012737-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422/24
Arising out of FIR no. 884/2022 u/s 354/354A IPC PS Burari
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Yogesh S/o Sh. Sube Singh
R/o Khasra no. 650, Gali no. 4, Namardar Colony,
Village Burari, Delhi
Also At:
H. no. RZ-E-72, Gali no. 4,
Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, New Delhi
2. Gaurav S/o Sh. Rohtash
R/o H. no. 82, Punjab National Bank,
Burari, Delhi.
.......Appellants
Versus
1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Smt. Preeti Rajput D/o Sunil Rajput
R/o Khasra No. 650, Gali no. 4, Namardar Colony,
Village Burari, Delhi.
........Respondents
Instituted on :05.10.2024
Reserved on :18.12.2025
Pronounced on :13.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide instant appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2024 and order on sentence dated 06.09.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-03. Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR no. 884/2022, u/s CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 1 of 12 354/354B/506/34 IPC PS Burari in case bearing Cr. Case no. 3350/2023 titled as ' State Vs. Yogesh & Anr.' , whereby Appellants/accused persons were convicted for offence u/s 352/34 IPC and was acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 354/354B/506/34 IPC. The present appeal has been preferred by appellants/accused persons challenging his conviction for the said offence and order on sentence emanating therefrom.
2. The factual gamut involved in the present appeal as is culled out from the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2024:-
"......complainant has averred that on 27.11.2022 construction work was going on in her house and the construction was being unloaded in the front ofher gate. At that time, only they used to get the material inside the house but at 10:30 AM when one tractor trolley came there, one Sunita who was residing in her neighbourhood along with Kajal and Yogesh came out of their house and started obstructing the way of the tractor and said "hum gali me badarpur nahi utarne denge". When complainant objected to tht esame, they were not listening and she called on 112 number due to which police came. After sometime when the PCR left, both the accused came near her, dragged her by holding her hand and accused torn her wearing suit. Accused Yogesh had also touched her inappropriately and threatened her that she would be killed. In this background, the legal proceedings in the present matter were initiated with the registration of FIR in the present case."
3. Investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet u/s 354/354B/506/34 IPC was prepared and same was sent to the Court for trial. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken by the ld. Trial Court and the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C were complied with by the ld. Trial Court.
4. After hearing arguments on point of service of notice, notice for CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 2 of 12 the offence under Section 354/354B/506/34 IPC IPC was served upon the accused persons to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
6. Subsequently, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to make a brief mention of the role and deposition of these prosecution witnesses. The detail deposition of the witnesses is not being adverted to, as the same shall be referred to while dealing with the necessary ingredients of the offense, with which the accused persons have been charged, vis-a-vis the rival contentions advanced by the Ld. Addl.PP for the state as well as the ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. Even the detailed cross examination of these witnesses is not being mentioned for the sake of brevity, but the same shall be referred to during the course of appreciating the legal as well as the factual issues advanced by the parties.
i. PW-1 is ASI Krishan Gopal whodeposed that on 27.11.2022, he was serving at PCR Van of 28 ALPHA along with HC Ajay and at 10:40 am -10:45 am, a call was received qua quarrel and he went to the Khasra no. 650, Gali no. 4, Nambardar Colony, Burari, where complainant HC Satbir met him. ii. PW-2 is Ct. Priyanka who accompanied the complainant to the spot and witnessed the preparation of site plan Ex. PW1/A by the IO. On 28.11.2022, the statement of the complainant was recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and case property was correctly identified by witness in Ex. X-1. iii. PW-3 is complainant Ms. P. She identified her signatures on the various memos i.e. Site plan, seizure memos, her counseling report and which were already proved as Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW1/A, Ex.
CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 3 of 12 PW2/A and Ex PW3/B. She also exhibited the case property i.e. torn suit as Ex. X1.
iv. PW4 is ASI Manoj who proved the entry in the register no. 19 at serial no. 2428 as Ex. PW4/A, regarding the case property deposited in the malkhana.
v. PW5 is HC Satyavir, IO of the case who deposed about the steps taken by him in the investigation. vi. PW6 is Dr. Chirag Arora who proved the MLC of the complainant as Ex. PW6/A.
7. The accused persons admitted the recording of the FIR, Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., counseling session, DD no. 42 and 43A, examination of victim by Dr. Durga Devi and visiting of spot along with the IO while denying their contents and the same were proved as Ex. P-1, Ex. P-1A-1, Ex. P-1B, Ex. P-2, Ex P-3, Ex. PW3/B, Ex. P-4, Ex. P4A and Ex. P-5 and Ex. PA10 respectively in their statements u/s 294 of the Cr.P.C. dated 12.12.2023 and 12.01.2024.
8. After, conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellants/accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them. Appellants denied the same as incorrect and claimed to be falsely implicated by the police. Appellants/ accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case as no such incident took place on the said date. They stated that seven days prior to the alleged incident, the complainant and her family members had given bad beatings to one Sh. Sube Singh, father of accused Yogesh. It was stated that an FIR was lodged against the husband of the complainant and other family members, due to CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 4 of 12 which, the present FIR was lodged. It was stated that on the day of the incident, they and their family were at trauma Centre, Chandi Ram Avtar Hospital. They stated that the incident of beating had taken place on 21.11.2022, for which FIR no. 876/2022 PS Burari was lodged.
9. Appellants lead defence evidence and examined three witnesses.
i. DW1is Sh. Yogesh, accused himself who deposed about the altercation regarding carrying of building material. ii. DW2 is Sh. Gaurav who deposed about the incident of the husband of the complainant beating the father of accused Yogesh.
iii. DW3 is Ms. Sunita, mother of the accused Yogesh.
10.Vide impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court convicted the appellants for offence u/s 352/34 IPC after relying upon the testimonies of the complaiannt and the police officials.
11.Vide separate order on sentence, the convicts/ appellants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence u/s 352/34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
12.The appellants are aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order on sentence emanating therefrom and have assailed the same on the following grounds:-
i. Because the impugned judgment whereby appellant/convict has been convicted/sentenced is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
ii. Because the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment has failed to consider the omissions and improvements made by the complainant in her complaint and testimony before the Court; iii. Because the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment has failed to consider that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution;
CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 5 of 12 iv. Because the ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no specific charge u/s 352 of the IPC was framed and as such, the appellants did not have opportunity to defend themselves under the same; v. Because the Ld. Trial Court did not give any reason as to how, the appellants were convicted u/s 352 of the IPC after taking recourse to Section 222 Cr.P.C.;
vi. Because the ld. Trial Court failed to observe that the nature of injury was a self-inflicted one;
vii. The ld. Trial Court failed to observe that there is delay in filing of the complaint and no reasons of the same has been given; viii. Because the ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Section 352 of the IPC is a summons trial case but the procedure of warrant trial was adopted;
ix. Because the ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the present case was a counterblast to the FIR no. 876/2022 against the husband of the complainant; & x. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellants were not present at the spot on the relevant time.
13.Ld. Counsel for appellant though took the aforesaid grounds in the appeal but as is reflected from the ordersheet dated 12.09.2025, he confined himself to the point that despite the fact that charges have not been framed u/s 352 of the IPC, the appellants have been convicted thereunder and as such, they were prejudiced.
14.Per contra, Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/respondent no. 1 and ld. Counsel for the Respondent no. 2 have opposed the appeal, stating that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced them.
15.I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
16.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 6 of 12 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.
17.It is well settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and has to stand upon on its own legs. The prosecution also cannot draw any strength from the case of the accused howsoever weak it may be. It is also well settled proposition of criminal law that the accused has a profound right not to be convicted for an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled principle of law that in a criminal trial the burden of proof always rests upon the prosecution and the same never shifts onto the accused.
18.Now the question which arises for the consideration is that whether the prosecution has been able to produce such evidence on the record which warrant the conviction of the accused on the touch stone of golden principal of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond the reasonable doubt.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
19.The principal contention raised by the appellants is that no charge under Section 352 IPC was framed and therefore their conviction for the said offence has caused prejudice to them. It is further argued that the offence under Section 354 IPC is triable CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 7 of 12 as a warrant case, whereas the offence under Section 352 IPC is triable as a summons case, and therefore the appellants were deprived of a fair opportunity to defend themselves. On this basis, it has been prayed that the matter be remanded for retrial.
20.At the outset, it is observed that ld Trial Court in para no. 22 of the impugned judgment has given detailed reasoning as to why, the appellants were convicted u/s 352 of the IPC instead of the ones they were charged for.
21.Even otherwise, the contention does not merit acceptance. The allegations against the appellants throughout the proceedings were that they had used criminal force against the complainant during the incident in question.
22.At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the ingredients of the offences under Sections 352 and 354 IPC.
23.Section 352 IPC provides punishment for assault or use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. The essential ingredients of this offence are that the accused must have intentionally assaulted or used criminal force against another person, and that such act was not committed on grave and sudden provocation.
24.On the other hand, Section 354 IPC deals with assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that such act is likely to outrage her modesty. The essential ingredients of this offence are:
(i) the victim must be a woman;
(ii) the accused must have assaulted or used criminal force against her;& CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 8 of 12
(iii) such assault or use of criminal force must have been with the intention to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that her modesty is likely to be outraged.
25.Thus, while assault or use of criminal force is common to both provisions, the offence under Section 354 IPC requires the additional and specific element of intention or knowledge relating to outrage of modesty, which is not required for the offence under Section 352 IPC.
26.In the present case, from the evidence on record it stands established that criminal force was indeed used during the occurrence. However, the material on record also indicates that the incident arose out of a sudden altercation and assumed the character of a free fight between the parties. In such circumstances, though the use of force is proved, the prosecution evidence does not establish that the act was accompanied by the specific intention or knowledge to outrage the modesty of the complainant, which is a sine qua non for constituting the offence under Section 354 IPC. The learned Trial Court therefore rightly concluded that while the ingredient of use of criminal force stood proved, the essential element required for the offence under Section 354 IPC was not made out, and consequently the act would fall within the ambit of Section 352 IPC.
27.The record further reveals that the learned Trial Court has carefully examined the surrounding circumstances while appreciating the testimony of the complainant. It was noticed that there existed a history of quarrels and strained relations between the parties, to the extent that an FIR no. 876/2022 PS CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 9 of 12 Burari was lodged by the mother of the accused Yogesh against family members of the complainant for giving beatings to Sh. Sube Singh, father of the accused Yogesh. In view of such background, the learned Trial Court rightly approached the testimony of the complainant with greater caution and scrutiny, which is a settled principle of appreciation of evidence where the parties are known to be inimical. The Trial Court also took into consideration that the first call made to the police related to a different aspect of the altercation and did not immediately contain allegations regarding outraging of modesty. These circumstances including delay in FIR and ingredients of Section 506 IPC not being made out, were appropriately evaluated by the Trial Court while determining whether the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were established.
28.In terms of Section 222 CrPC, when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars and only some of those particulars are proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence though he was not charged with it. The offence under Section 352 IPC is clearly a lesser and cognate offence in relation to the factual allegations forming the basis of the charge under Section 354 IPC.
29.The absence of a specific charge under Section 352 IPC would not vitiate the conviction unless the accused demonstrates real prejudice resulting in failure of justice, as contemplated under Sections 215 and 464 CrPC. In the present case, the appellants were fully aware of the allegations relating to the use of force CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 10 of 12 and had complete opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead defence evidence. No specific prejudice has been shown.
30.The argument regarding the difference between warrant trial and summons trial is also misconceived. A warrant case relates to offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding two years, whereas a summons case relates to offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years. The distinction primarily lies in the procedural framework relating to discharge and framing of charge. However, where an accused has been tried under the more elaborate and protective procedure of a warrant trial, he cannot claim prejudice merely because the evidence ultimately establishes only a lesser offence triable as a summons case. The safeguards available in a warrant trial are in fact greater than those available in a summons trial.
31.The record further shows that the learned Trial Court has dealt with all the issues raised by the defence in considerable detail. The contention regarding non-joining of public witnesses was specifically considered and rightly rejected, observing that mere absence of independent witnesses does not render the prosecution case doubtful when the testimony of the material witnesses is otherwise reliable. The learned Trial Court also examined the plea of alibi raised by the accused persons and correctly held that the same remained unproved as the accused failed to lead cogent evidence to establish their presence CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 11 of 12 elsewhere at the relevant time.
32.Upon re appreciation of the record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and recorded well-reasoned findings on all material aspects. No perversity, illegality or miscarriage of justice is made out so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction or to justify ordering a retrial.
33.The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 352/34 IPC is well founded and therefore legally sustainable.
34.Accordingly, the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2024 is dismissed. Let the parties be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed byBHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH Announced in the open court SINGH Date: 2026.03.13 17:11:05 +0530 (Judgment contains 12 pages) (Bhupinder Singh) ASJ-05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 13.03.2026 CA 422/24 State Vs. Yogesh Page No. 12 of 12