Delhi District Court
B. Lalitha vs Ajay Kumar on 26 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CA NO. 410/2019
CNR : DLSE01-006127-2019
B. LALITHA
W/O SH. J. BALALJI
R/O H. NO. L-24 E, SHEIK SARAI,
PHASE-II, MALVIYA NAGAR, SOUTH DELHI-110017
....... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. SH. AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ BABU
S/O SH. HARENDER SINGH
R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR, KHURIYA,
PS BHATANI, DISTRICT DEORIA,
UTTAR PRADESH-274001
2. THE STATE
(Govt. of NCT OF DELHI)
THROUGH ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
GREATER KAILASH, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
DELHI- 110048 .......
RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.08.2019 ORDER RESERVED ON : 25.04.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON : 26.04.2025 Digitally JUDGMENT signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the appeal u/s. 372 Cr.PC 2025.04.26 15:14:17 +0530 CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 1 OF 16 alongwith application u/s 5 of Limitation Act which assails the judgment dated 24.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") in FIR bearing no. 266/2013, PS Greater Kailash-I passed by Ld. MM-02 (Mahila Court), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the accused Ajay Kumar @ Bablu was acquitted for the offence punishable u/s. 354-D/506 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant has alleged in her complaint dated 06.12.2013 that accused Ajay Kumar who was working as Security guard in her Delhi office was sexually harassing and speaking uncivilized words to her; that the accused was continuously calling the complainant on her phone and asked her "where is my house", "do I have any sister so that I can marry her ", "I want Lalita and I will finish off your family members and children"; that on 05.12.2013 in the night, the complainant received three calls from the accused and also received two calls in the afternoon of 06.12.2013 from mobile number 9506313103 and earlier she had received calls from mobile phone nos. 9914294030, 969525072, 7800860398, 044-24310347 and 044-26800795; that accused was harassing the complainant despite several warnings extended to him by the Women Cell.
3. On the said complaint, FIR no. 266/2013 under section 506/509/354-D IPC, PS Greater Kailash-I was registered. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused and he was summoned. Vide order dated 29.07.2016 charge u/s.
354-D/506 IPC was framed against the accused. During the trial seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and after hearing final arguments by the Ld. Trial Court, the accused/ appellant was CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 2 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:14:34 +0530acquitted of the offence under section 354-D/506 IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
4. The impugned judgment has been challenged on the grounds that same is wrong in law since it did not appreciate the relevant facts and principles of law while acquitting the accused/ respondent no. 1; that the Ld. Magistrate fails to take into consideration the defect in the investigation conducted by the investigating authorities and further fails to appreciate the nature of evidences provided by the appellant and her husband hence the impugned order requires reconsideration by this Court; that the appellant helped accused/R-1 in resolving the issue related to payment of his salary merely on a professional level but accused took advantage of the situation and started harassing and calling the appellant at odd hours; that appellant tried to handle the situation on her own and lodged the FIR only when situation went out of her hand; that in the FIR, appellant clearly stated that accused was continuously calling her and saying that "where is your house?" "Do you have any sister that I can marry her?" "I will finish off your family members and children".. and so on and she further stated that " Yesterday night I get 3 calls from him and today afternoon 2 calls so all calls from the mobile number: 0950631303, earlier he was calling from 09941294036, 9695925072, 7800860398, 044-24310347 and 044-
26800795"; that it is evident that the complaints made by the appellant cannot be considered as false or vague as she was very specific about the incidents and also the phone numbers from which the accused had called her which are also substantiated by her CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 3 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:14:43 +0530 statement u/s. 137 Cr.PC; that the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that there was motive of false implication of the accused is not at all relevant since the fact that appellant was able to resolve the salary issue of the accused is also an indicator that any motive for false implication is baseless; that the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that charge-sheet does not disclose the exact date, time or place of alleged incidents does not hold good because it not only mentions the current incident but also mentions about the previous complaint made against the accused; that the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that previous complaints made by the appellant were not placed on the record does not hold good since the investigating authorities failed to peruse and bring on record the complaints made by the appellant against the accused; that the finding that prosecution failed to examine the other public witnesses is not a sound ground to acquit the accused since it is evident from the excerpts of the FIR, charge-sheet, examination-in-chief and cross examination of the appellant that she could not file a complaint at her work place i.e. ISS-SDB Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi due to the fact that the company did not have any Committee for sexual harassment and moreover the stigma attached to offences of sexual harassment may have prevented the appellant from discussing it with colleagues; that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments that testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to sustain conviction in cases of the violence against women; that the finding that the husband of the appellant is an hear-say witness is erroneous since accused not only called the appellant but also called her husband namely Shri Balaji and said " I want Lalitha, why is she avoiding me, I like Lalitha" and "I want Lalitha, why is she CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 4 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:14:50 +0530 not picking up my phone, why is she avoiding me "; that accused also abused appellant's husband on many occasions and criminally intimidated him therefore his testimony is of great relevance and higher evidentiary value and cannot be discarded as merely hear- say; that finding that statement of appellant was not corroborated by her statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC is false and erroneous; that appellant corroborated all the allegations made by her during her examination, cross examination as well as her statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC; that the sole ground of acquitting the accused is that the call records and ownership of the SIM card in question were not brought on record and examined by the police does not hold good since it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that acquittal cannot be sustained in case of defective investigation; that since respondent no. 1 was found in possession of said SIM card in his village and was using it and therefore the requirement of examination of owner does not arise and is of no relevance; that it is evident from the FIR, charge-sheet and previous complaints dated 12.05.2012 and 10.05.2013 that accused not only called from one particular mobile phone but called from various other numbers however the particulars of only one mobile number i.e. 0950631303 was taken into consideration despite the fact that other mobile numbers were also mentioned in the FIR; that the investigating authorities did not inquire about the other numbers from which accused was making calls, conducted a sub-standard investigation which resulted in acquittal of the accused and denial of justice to the appellant. In view of the same, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment passed by Ld. MM be set aside. 4.1. The present appeal is accompanied with the application Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:15:17 CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 5 OF 16 +0530 seeking condonation of delay on the grounds that appellant was present only for her examination-in-chief and cross examination and was informed by the authorities about the trial; that when she came to know about the impugned judgment she approached the Court and applied for the certified copy of the same. In view of the same, it has been prayed that delay in filing the present appeal be condoned.
5. Notice of the present appeal was issued to the accused/ respondent however no reply was filed on his behalf.
6. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the appellant/State as well as ld. counsel for respondent and perused the record of the Trial Court as well as the order of acquittal dated 24.05.2018.
7. Before deciding the appeal on merits, I will first decide the aspect of limitation. There is delay of around 341 days in filing the present appeal and the sufficient cause shown by the appellant is that she was not informed about the status of the case and hence the appeal could not be filed on time. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied the Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in 'Ranjana Shantilal Suryawanshi Vs. Jaiprakash Tulsiram Gupta & Anr.' Cr. Appl No. 380/ 2019 in Crl. Appeal (ST) No. 390/2019 dated 16.07.2020 whereby the Hon'ble High Court condoned the delay of around 717 days. The expression 'sufficient cause', employed by the legislature to condone delay, is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of the Courts. The Courts need make a justifiable, liberal, and justice oriented approach in this respect. The prupose of the Limitation Act is not to destroy the rights. In view of CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 6 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:15:25 +0530 the same and interest of justice, the condonation in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
8. Coming on the merits of the appeal, the charge u/s. 354D/506 IPC was framed in the present case on the basis of the complaint made by complainant. Section 354-D IPC speaks about Stalking: It states that:
"(1) Any man who -
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication".
8.1. The points requiring proof u/s 354D IPC are:-
(i) The man should follow a woman.
(ii) He should contact or attempt to contact her.
(iii) The purpose should be personal interaction repeatedly and,
(iv) There should be a clear indication of disinterest by that woman.
8.2. Section 354 IPC revolves around the term 'Modesty'. Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to a woman, "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this section is an attribute associated with female human beings as class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 7 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:15:33 +0530 intercourse is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is like to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object.
8.3. Section 506 IPC provide punishment for criminal intimidation. The word "criminal intimidation" is defined u/s 503 IPC. The points requiring proof are:
(i) That the accused insulted some person.
(ii) That he did so intentionally.
(iii) That he thereby gave provocation to some person.
(iv) That he then intended, or knew it to be likely, that the provocation given will cause him to break the public peace or commit any other offence.
9. In order to prove the allegations the prosecution examined complainant as PW-1 and her husband namely Sh. J. Balaji as PW-2. Complainant i.e. PW-1 has deposed that "I was working as Manager HR in company namely SDB SISCO Pvt. Ltd. at its GK Branch, which is now known as SISCO Company in the year 2010. In the same year accused (identity not disputed) was transferred from Chennai to Delhi at its GK Branch as a security guard. There was some salary issue of the accused and due to my intervention as a Manager HR, he was paid his salary of 15-17 days, which was not paid to him while he was working in Chennai. After that, since 2012, he started harassing me. He used to call on my phone and say words like "do you have a sister with you, I want to marry her, I want your house address so that I can go to your house and see your sister and marry her". After this, he started calling me on my mobile phone and said when are you coming with me? I want you and Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 8 2025.04.26 OF 16 15:15:39 +0530 obscene stuff like this. He used to call me at late hours. I complained regarding this twice in the Women Cell somewhere in the month of April or May, 2013. After giving these complaints, accused stopped calling me for one or two months. Then he started calling my husband saying "Hi Balajee, send Lalita to me". It is therefore, that I was compelled to file this complaint to police. He also threatened me that you would finish off my family. Since it has been a long time. I do not remember the numbers from which he used to make calls to me but he used to make these calls from many different numbers. After my complaint to police which is Ex.PW1/A, accused was arrested and brought to the police station. He was formally arrested in my presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. His personal search was also conducted in my presence vide memo Ex.PW1/C, bearing my signature at point A. I also gave my statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. Magistrate, which is Ex.PW1/D". She was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
9.1. PW-2 Sh. J. Balaji has deposed that "My wife was working as Manager HR in company, which is now known as SISCO.
Accused, (identity not disputed) was working as security guard in the same company at Chennai. Later accused was transferred to Delhi where my wife was working. My wife helped him to get his salary dues. The accused was posted at Noida at that time. The accused used to come at the office of my wife whenever he was free. He also collected the phone number of my wife and started calling my wife in regard to non-official or personal matters. One day, he asked my wife, whether she had a sister as he wanted to marry her. He also started asking for the Chennai address of my CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 9 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:15:54 +0530 wife. He used to call her at odd hours i.e. 11.00 at night or midnight. Since my wife held the post of HR she could not have even switched off or put her phone on silent mode and was thus compelled to attend late night calls which the accused used to make from different mobile numbers. I just remember last digits of one of such mobile number that ends in ......313103. Due to lapse of time, I do not remember the other mobile numbers. Once the accused during 2012 or early 2013 made a call to me from a landline number, which I tracked and found to be from a PCO in Chennai. On that day, accused said "I want Lalita, why is she avoiding me. I like Lalita". When I warned him from making such obscene calls and complaining to police, he told me that he was not afraid of police and threatened me of killing me and my family. Again, once in 2013. accused made another call to me from a PCO in Chennai while I was in the office and he said the same things "I want Lalita, why is she not picking my phone, why is she avoiding me". In order to avoid him, I said that I do not live in Chennai but in outskirts of Chennai at Chingleput and so accused once called Lalita and said that he was in Chingleput and asked the exact address in order to visit our house. In May or June, 2013, again accused called my wife and uttered obscene words to her. My wife therefore, complained to Women Cell repeatedly. But the accused did not refrain from his conduct. Therefore, my wife made the present complaint which is already Ex.PW1/A. Police made inquiry from me and recorded my statement". He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10. The case of Prosecution is that accused stalked the complainant by contacting her over phone to foster personal interaction despite clear indication of dis-interest by her and further CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 10 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:16:01 +0530 threatened to kill her. Hence the allegations are that accused followed the complainant by calling her again and again on her personal as well as her official number. Complainant has alleged that accused to say words like "do you have a sister with you, I want to marry her, I want your house address so that I can go to your house and see your sister and marry her". After this he started calling me on my mobile phone and said when are you coming with me? I want you and obscene stuff like this. He used to call me at late hours. The requirement under the section is unwarranted contact. This element involves any form of communication, be it in person or through electronic means, where the woman has expressed dis-interest and the man persist in trying to establish contact. Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to a women, "womanly propriety of behavior, scrupulous chastity of though, speech and conduct". What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of woman's modesty is her sex. The utterance of the words by the accused "do you have a sister with you, I want to marry her, I want your house address so that I can go to your house and see your sister and marry her". After this, he started calling me on my mobile phone and said when are you coming with me? I want you and obscene stuff like this. He used to call me at late hours " are definitely intended towards sex and definitely impinge her modesty. Secondly, the requirement is that the act of stalking must exhibit a certain degree of repeated-ness, the ingredient which has been well established by the complainant when she has deposed that accused used to call her on phone and the word "used to" denotes repeated- ness. The fact that accused used to call again and again was got re-
CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 11 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:2025.04.26 15:16:08 +0530
confirmed during cross-examination of complainant/ PW-1 when she has stated that "I advised the accused not to call her again and again". Thirdly, the reaction of the women is very relevant in coming to the conclusion whether she took those utterances as attack on her modesty. In the present case, the complainant did not like the said conduct of accused since she has deposed that " she complained regarding this twice in the Women cell " and not only that, she also narrated the said to her husband. The testimony of complainant goes unrebutted regarding the said utterances and no contrary suggestion was given to the witness regarding the said fact. No question was put from the side of the accused that he did not utter said words to the complainant which infringes her modesty. This part of his testimony goes unchallenged, unrebutted and unshattered as the same has not been assailed by way of cross examination. It is well settled principle of law that if any part of testimony is not challenged in the cross examination that is deemed to be admitted.
10.1. The testimony of complainant is well corroborated by the testimony of her husband namely Sh. J. Balaji who was examined as PW-2. In the words of PW-2, "He also collected the phone number of my wife and started calling my wife in regard to non-
official or personal matters. One day, he asked my wife, whether she had a sister as he wanted to marry her. He also started asking for the Chennai address of my wife. He used to call her at odd hours i.e. 11.00 at night or midnight. Since my wife held the post of HR she could not have even switched off or put her phone on silent mode and was thus compelled to attend late night calls which the accused used to make from different mobile numbers ". He has CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 12 OF 16 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:16:15 +0530 further deposed that "Once the accused during 2012 or early 2013 made a call to me from a landline number, which I tracked and found to be from a PCO in Chennai. On that day, accused said "I want Lalita, why is she avoiding me. I like Lalita" . During cross- examination, he has re-confirmed that he got to know about the present incident only from his wife; that the entire conversation of the accused which he made to his wife was narrated to him by his wife. He has further stated that accused used to call him and his wife from different mobile numbers; that accused made call even on his phone also. The testimony of this witness also goes unrebutted and unchallenged and no question mark was raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel during cross-examination that no such thing happened as narrated by him. No doubt the testimony of PW-2 is heresay since he is not the eye witness of the conduct of the accused but same cannot be out-rightly thrown to the ground since his testimony is going in consonance with the testimony of complainant i.e. PW-1. In that way the testimony of PW-2 can be said to be corroborating the testimony of complainant i.e. PW-1. 10.2. Though it may be correct that complainant has alleged that accused used to call her from different mobile numbers and no investigation was done by the IO qua the said calls. However the question is that when complainant has clearly deposed that those calls were made by the accused and also described what all things were said by the accused during the said calls and those things are prima facie showing that those words are not fit to be a conversation by a man to a wife of other man and that point of testimony has not been challenged by the Ld. Defence Counsel, will that not amount to outrage to the female modesty and the answer Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. 15:16:46 Page No. 13 OF 16 +0530 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:2025.04.26 15:16:21 +0530
will be definite 'YES'. Secondly, whatever complainant has alleged in her complaint, she reiterated the same in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and she has deposed on the similar lines before the Court to a large extent and minor additions or deviation in her statement will not affect the case of Prosecution. Ld. Defence Counsel failed to point out material infirmities in the version of complainant or omission on the vital points which may make the story absolutely different and improvements making the occurrence in an entirely different atmosphere. With that regard I do not conquer with the finding of Ld. Trial Court that " the allegation of the complainant are not substantiated as there was no investigation in respect to the calls made by the accused as no voice sample of the accused were taken and the same lacked credence as there was no call recording to verify the voice of the accused. The Statement of the witness is also not corroborated with the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and further no location chart of the mobile phone from which calls were received were ever filed with the chargesheet ". It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Iqbal Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported at (2013) 14 SCC 481 that testimony of a victim can be the sole basis for conviction provided that the testimony is of sterling quality, just, reliable and trustworthy. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 that "the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the Digitally signed by GEETANJALI CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH &GEETANJALI ANR. Page No. 14 OF 16 Date:
2025.04.26 15:16:54 +0530 witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it".
10.3. Coming to the present case, the defence has failed to impeach the credibility of complainant during cross-examination and her version was found to be unassailable. Her deposition is found to be trustworthy and unblemished and credible enough so as to fix the guilt upon the accused. In view of the same, the version of the complainant cannot be thrown to the ground on the basis of defects in the investigation. Otherwise also, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case title " Dhanraj Singh @ Shera and Others Vs. State of Punjab (2004) 3 SCC 654 that even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. In the case of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly Digitally signed by defective. GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26 15:17:00 +0530 CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 15 OF 16
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment dated 24.05.2018 is hereby set aside and acquittal of the accused is also set aside. Accused is hereby convicted for offence u/s 354-D/506 IPC.
Typed to the direct dictation and Digitally
signed by
announced in the open court GEETANJALI
on this 26th day of April, 2025 GEETANJALI Date:
2025.04.26
15:17:06
+0530
(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03
South East District, Saket Courts
New Delhi/26.04.2025
CA No. 410/2019 B. LALITHA VS. AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Page No. 16 OF 16