Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State on 29 August, 2025
NIN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN-1: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
CA: 105/2020
CNR No. : DLCT-01-004181-2020
SANJAY KUMAR
S/o Sh. Sant Ram
R/o Village Bali
Post & District Baghpat (U.P.) ....Appellant
Versus
STATE ....Respondent
Date of filing of Appeal : 17.07.2020
Date on which order reserved : 05.07.2025
Date on which order pronounced : 29.08.2025
Final Order : Dismissed.
Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order of
Conviction dated 29.02.2020 and order of Sentence dated
04.03.2020 inFIR No. 450/2014 U/s 354/509 IPC PS Chandni
Mahal passed by the Ld. Mahilla Court (Central), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi.
O R D E R:-
1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated 29.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 04.03.2020 whereby Ld. Mahilla Court (Central) Tis Hazari Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year along with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default SI for 10 days and Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:04:12 +0530 CA No. 105/2020 page no. 1 of 15 further sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC along with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default SI for 10 days.
2. The brief facts as necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that DD no. 41 A dated 29.08.2014 was received in the police station regarding teasing of girl. The DD No. 41 A, Ex. PW1/A, was handed over to SI Ajay Singh who along with Ct. Neeraj went to the spot where they met complainant namely 'R' who gave her statement in which she stated that on 29.08.2014 she along with her husband had gone to watch a movie at Delite Cinema, Asaf Ali Road, after watching movie, at around 9:00 pm she along with her husband boarded a bus for going to Laxmi Nagar. There were lot of passengers in the bus. Her husband stopped towards the conductor side for taking tickets and she went in front to take the ladies seat. In the front on the ladies seat one person namely Sanjay Kumar was sitting. She asked him to vacate the seat as it was a ladies seat and she insisted to sit, upon which the accused started abusing and mis- behaving and stated that he would not get up. She again asked him to vacate the seat upon which he stated " Me abhi 100-150 aadmi bula lunga jo teri izzat ki dhajiyan oora denge". When she reprimanded him and asked him to behave properly, accused got up caught hold of her hand and slapped on her chest. She started shouting, driver stopped the bus on Delhi Gate red light, her husband caught hold of accused and a call at 100 number was made. On the basis of her statement FIR bearing no. 450/2014 u/s 354/354A IPC PS Darya Ganj was registered.
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:04:29
+0530
CA No. 105/2020 page no. 2 of 15
3. During the course of investigation, accused was got medically examined, statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after completion of investigation instead of Section 354A IPC Section 509 IPC was added and chargesheet was filed u/s 354/509 IPC.
4. Vide order dated 21.04.2015, Ld. MM framed charge u/s 354 and 509 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses namely Ct. Neeraj as PW-1, ASI Raghunath Giri as PW-2, Ms. Rani as PW-3, Pankaj Kumar as PW-4, WSI Sunita as PW-5, Ms. Riya Guha, Ld. MM as PW-6, SI Ajay Singh as PW-7.
6. Statement of accused was recorded on 22.07.2019, in his support accused examined one defence witness namely Sunil Kumar as DW-1. DE was closed.
7. Vide impugned order accused was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced accordingly.
8. No oral arguments have been addressed by the appellant/accused and it was stated that on the basis of written arguments so filed the appeal be decided.
9. In the written arguments it is stated that no public witnesses were joined by the investigating officer. The accused never outraged the modesty of the complainant nor used any CA No. 105/2020 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN page no. 3 of 15 JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:05:28 +0530 criminal force. It is further stated that complainant refused to undergo medical examination as she was herself under the influence of liquor. It is stated that the Ld. Trial court has failed to take into consideration the testimony of DW-1. It is further stated that complainant in order to extort money falsely dialed 100 number.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits there is no infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
11. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the trial court record.
12. Ld. Trial court after considering the testimony of PWs found that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/ 354/509 IPC, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"20. Looking into the allegations u/s 354 and 509 IPC, it can be stated that it is the duty of prosecution to prove that accused assaulted the prosecutrix / complainant "R"
in order to and with the intent to outrage her modesty. For that, prosecution heavily relies on the testimony of PW complainant "R". It is the case of prosecution that accused assaulted the complainant in a crowded bus when a confrontation between them took place for the ladies seat. In order to prove the stated occurrence, complainant has detailed in her testimony the incident dated 29.08.2014. Further, she also related the role of the accused and the specific actions of the accused while assaulting her. She has admitted that it was a crowded bus and her husband had gone to the conductor to purchase the bus tickets. She has also proved that accused was heavily drunk at that time. Moreover, she has identified the accused in court.
CA No. 105/2020 ANKUR Digitally signed
by ANKUR JAIN page no. 4 of 15
JAIN Date: 2025.08.29
12:05:38 +0530
21. Prosecution has also examined the husband of complainant as PW-4 who has supported the complainant and prosecution's story completely. He has also stated that when that incident was occurring, he moved towards his wife and attempted to intervene. He also proved the threats extended to the complainant and the conduct of the accused. He also identified ne accused in court. Both the above-stated PWs have corroborated each other. Though, both of them have been extensively cross-examined, their testimonies could not be shaken.
22. Prosecution has also examined the IO and the other police officials who have proved the investigation. It is pertinent to say that the settled position of law is that the sole testimony of complainant can become the basis of conviction if found reliable.
23. The accused has examined DW-1 Sunil Kumar as a defence witness who has submitted that accused has not misbehaved with the complainant and was sitting on the ladies seat due to his injuries. However, he did not dispute or raise substantial questions on the prosecution's case. Neither did he question the presence of accused at the spot. Ld. Defence Counsel has raised multiple questions as to the handing over of bus tickets, MLCs and movie hall tickets being handed over to the IO, but, none of these questions pertain to the merit of the case.
24. Therefore, in light of foregoing discussion, being read with the testimony of prosecutrix / complainant "R", this court convicts accused Sanjay Kumar for offences U/s 354/509 IPC."
13. In the written submissions it is stated that complainant was under the influence of liquor. Complainant was cross examined as PW-3. In the cross examination she specifically put as to whether they were medically examined or not, she stated that police did not got her and her husband medically examined. She denied the suggestion that she and her husband had consumed liquor and therefore, they had an argument with the accused. A similar question was put to PW-4, the husband of complainant, CA No. 105/2020 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN page no. 5 of 15 JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:05:47 +0530 who also gave a similar reply. PW-4 was suggested that police wanted to get them medically examined but since they were drunk they refused. IO was cross examined, no such suggestion was given to her that why she did not get the complainant and her husband medically examined or that since they were under the influence of liquor IO did not get them medically examined. The complainant could not have got herself medically examined and it was the duty of the IO to get them medically examined. IO was the best person to explain the correctness of the statement of PW-3 and PW-4, by not giving any suggestion to the IO accused had waived his right to challenge the veracity of the correctness of the version given by PW-3 and PW-4. In case the correctness of a statement is to be disputed, same must be put to the witness so as to afford him opportunity to explain his statement Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Rajendar Prasad Vs. Darshana Devi' (2001) 7 SCC Page 69, wherein it was held :
"There is an age old rule that if you dispute the correctness of the statement of a witness you must give him an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it which is objective to as untrue, otherwise you cannot impeach his credit.................".
14. Hence, this submission stands rejected.
15. The next submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that no public person was joined in the investigation. It is not the number of witnesses but the quality of the evidence which matters. Non joining of the public persons Ispo Facto would not discredit the testimony of the complainant. In Naresh @ Satya Vs. State (2024) 5 AD Delhi 391 it was held that there is no rule CA No. 105/2020 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN page no. 6 of 15 JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:06:31 +0530 of law that testimony of the complainant is to be discarded if despite availability of public witness they had not joined the investigation. It is a matter of common knowledge that public person refuse to come forward to become a part of police case. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
" It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that IO has not joined public witnesses during the investigation and also at the time when appellants pointed out the place of occurrence. As far as the question of non-joining of public witnesses is concerned, no doubt, the IO has not joined the public witness but that by itself does not falsify the entire case of the prosecution. The testimony of the official witnesses cannot be thrown away simply on the ground that IO failed to join public witnesses. It is a matter of common knowledge that individuals from the public sphere often display reluctance to participate in investigation proceedings. Moreover the failure of the IO to involve public witnesses can be deemed a procedural lapse on the part of the IO; however, such omission alone cannot serve as the sole rationale for discrediting the entirety of the prosecution's case and the testimony provided by credible official witnesses"
16. Hence, this submission is also liable to be rejected.
17. It was next argued that testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 is unreliable and liable to be discarded. In order to convict the accused, the sole testimony of complainant, if of sterling quality is sufficient to convict the accused. The testimony should be cogent, convincing, natural and of unimpeachable quality.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the parameter to be considered before the testimony of witness can be qualified as sterling witness. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (2012) 8SCC 21, the relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"In our considered opinion, 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 CA No. 105/2020 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN page no. 7 of 15 JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:06:40 +0530 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 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 person involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each other and every one of other supporting material such as the recovery is made, the weapon used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently matched with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting material for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged".
19. In order to qualify as a sterling witness, the testimony should be unshaken in the cross examination, the testimony should remain intact.
20. It is also no gain saying that testimony of injured stands on a higher pedestal as his presence on the spot is established and generally, he would not want the accused to scot free. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Abdul Sayeed Vs. CA No. 105/2020 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN page no. 8 of 15 JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:10:46 +0530 State of Madhya Pradesh reported as (2010) 10 SCC 258, the relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in- gurantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s). In order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh V.State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh Vs. State of U.P., Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, Bonkya Vs. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar Vs. State of U.P. (SCCp. 606B-c), Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu Vs. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Balraje Vs. State of Maharasthra].
21. In the present case the complainant and her husband both have categorically deposited about the manner in which the incident had occurred. The accused/appellant does not dispute his presence at the spot. PW-3 who is the complainant was asked whether it is correct that altercation was already going on between her and the accused when her husband came near to the seat to which she replied in affirmative. She was also suggested that she had given the colour of sexual harassment to the present case which she denied. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced as under:-
".....It is correct that there was altercation was going on between me and accused when my husband came near to the seat where I was standing and accused was sitting on the ladies seat. It is wrong to suggest that I have deliberately given as wrong colour of sexual harassment, sexual assault and use of criminal force for the purpose of outraging the modesty and criminal intimidation to the present case....".
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:06:51 +0530 CA No. 105/2020 page no. 9 of 15
22. PW-4 who is the husband of the complainant was suggested that dispute arose as his wife wanted to sit on the ladies seat while the accused was already siting and did not leave the same. Cumulatively, if these suggestions are read it clearly establishes that accused does not dispute his presence at the spot. Even otherwise, the testimony of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 independently establishes the presence of accused.
23. DW-1 has also admitted the presence of the accused at the time and place of the occurrence. DW-1 had categorically deposed that accused had requested the complainant that he was having injuries on his leg and thus was unable to stand and vacate the seat. The relevant portion of the examination in chief is reproduced as under:-
".....Accused requested the complainant that he was having injury in his leg and he was unable to stand....."
24. Thus it makes no difference if other public persons were not joined in the investigation as the presence on the spot and some altercation having taken place is established beyond reasonable doubt.
25. It was next stated by the applicant that there are discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses. Minor discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses would not discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In State of Uttar Pardesh Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witnesses. Minor contradiction in consistencies or improvement which do not effect the core of the CA No. 105/2020 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN page no. 10 of 15 JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:10:58 +0530 prosecution case could not be made a ground to reject the testimony. The relevant observations are reproduced as under:-
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witnesses due to normal errors of observations, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time of due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether this deposition inspires confidence".
26. Marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses cannot be dropped as improvements. In the present case appellant has been unable to point out any improvement, exaggerations and omission which could create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution, hence this submission also stands rejected.
27. It was next stated that even if the prosecution case is taken at its fact value offence u/s 354 IPC is not made out.
28. In order to appreciate the said contention Section 354 IPC is reproduced as under:-
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, [shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine].
ANKUR Digitally signed
by ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.08.29
12:07:14 +0530
CA No. 105/2020 page no. 11 of 15
A. In order to bring home the charge u/s 354 IPC, the
prosecution would be required to approve that accused had committed
(a) assault or used criminal force to a woman;
(b) intention or knowledge that such an act;
(c) would outrage her modesty.
29. Assault and criminal force has been defined under section 351 IPC and 350 IPC which are reproduced as under:-
30. Criminal force has been defined u/s 350 IPC which is reproduced as under:-
"Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person' consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other".
31. Assault is defined u/s 351 IPC which is reproduced as under:-
"Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault"
32. The intention or knowledge is the ingredient of the offence and not the women's feeling. It would follow that if the intention or knowledge was not proved, proof of the fact that the women felt that her modesty has been outraged would not satisfy the necessary ingredients of the offence. Likewise, if the intention or knowledge was proved, the fact that women did not feel that her ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN CA No. 105/2020 page no. 12 of 15 JAIN Date: 2025.08.29 12:07:22 +0530 modesty had been outraged would be relevant, for the necessary ingredient would then have been proved. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Major Singh 1966 (Supp) SCC 286.
33. In Varun Bhatia Vs. State 2023 (305) DLT 56, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that outraging the modesty of women depends upon the individual prospective and the court rely from the prospective of reasonable man's reaction to a given situation.
34. PW-3 has been very categorical that accused had slapped her breast. It is the case of DW-1 that appellant was referring to PW-3 as "behenji" which was not even suggested to PW-3 the complainant. The fact that some dispute took place between the accused and the complainant is established beyond reasonable doubt. PW-3 was never suggested that accused had not slapped her breast/chest. The testimony of the complainant has been through out consistent i.e. while making complaint, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her testimony before the court. The act of slapping a woman on her breast would make her shameful even from the prospective of a reasonable man view. It is also against the social norms and would have caused grave shock and anger. The accused even assuming that he had no intention to slap on the breast, can still be attributed with the knowledge that by slapping her breast he would outrage the modesty, which makes it punishable u/s 354 IPC. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of Ld. Trial Court, whereby it has convicted the appellant u/s 354 IPC.
CA No. 105/2020 page no. 13 of 15
ANKUR Digitally signed
by ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.08.29
12:07:32 +0530
35. In so far as the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC is concerned, is the case of the prosecution that accused/applicant has uttered the words "Abhi meh ek call karunga toh 100-150 aadmi bula lunga jo teri izzat ki dhajiya ura denge". Section 509 IPC concerns where words, gestures or acts are used with deliberate intention to insult or offend a woman's modesty. Section 509 IPC is outraging the modesty without use of force. There is no specific suggestion given to the complainant that such words were never spoken by the accused. The words so spoken threatens the women that in case she does not stop, the accused would make a call and many more man would come and outrage her modesty. The incident happened in a bus, around after 9:15 pm in the night. The words so spoken insults the modesty of the woman and thus I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court.
36. In so far as sentence is concerned the appellant has been sentenced to period of one year along with fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC and indefault SI for 10 days.
37. Similarly, he has been sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 1 year along with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default SI for 10 days. Nothing has ben argued before this court qua the sentence. Neither anything has been stated in the grounds of appeal.
38. Appeal stands dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.08.29
12:07:41 +0530
CA No. 105/2020 page no. 14 of 15
39. Appellant is taken into custody to serve the sentence. Custody warrants be prepared.
40. Copy of this order along with TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information. Copy of the order be given to the appellant free of cost.
41. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on this 29th day of August, 2025 (ANKUR JAIN-I) ASJ-04/Central/Delhi.
km
Digitally signed
ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.08.29
12:02:31 +0530
CA No. 105/2020 page no. 15 of 15