* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 9th November, 2017
Order pronounced on 16th November, 2017
+ CRL. REV. P. 528/2017
Through: Mr. Abdul Salam, Advocate.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ….Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for State.
Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (DHCLSC)
with the complainant in person.
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
Section 401 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 13.07.2017 passed in
C. A. No. 33/17 titled as ‘Abid Vs. State’ by the Additional
Sessions Judge, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and also
conviction order dated 28.03.207 and order on sentence dated
04.05.2017 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence
punishable under Section 354 IPC in case FIR No. 72/2008
registered at Police Station – Seelampur.
2. The brief and relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present
petition is that on 18.02.2008 a about 1:45 p.m., the complainant
was standing outside of his house; that the petitioner came there
CRL. REV. PET. 528/2017 Page 1 of 5
and introduced himself as Abid Hussain; that the petitioner put his
hand on the shoulder of the complainant and asked “Kitne Paise
Legi, Chal Mere Sath Chal”; that the complainant raised an alarm
and the people of the locality gathered there and apprehended the
petitioner; that PCR was called and petitioner was handed over to
3. After completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and was sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months for the said offence.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid conviction
and sentence, which was dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal
4. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo four months for the
offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and he is reported to
have undergone 1 ½ months in incarceration.
5. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner does not challenge the conviction passed by the Trial
Court, however prays that the petitioner be released on the period
already undergone as he has clean antecedent and having
responsibility of four daughters and three sons.
6. Supporting the impugned judgment/orders, learned APP for the
State contended that the petitioner has rightly been convicted on
the sole unrebutted testimony of the victim and both the courts
below have appreciated the facts in the correct perspective, hence,
the impugned judgments/orders do not warrant any interference.
CRL. REV. PET. 528/2017 Page 2 of 5
7. Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer made
in the petition and adopted the arguments raised by the learned
APP for the State.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. The present case involves Section 354 IPC which deals with
assault or criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a
woman. In Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala reported in  1
SCC 215, the Apex Court observed that :
“In order to constitute the offence under Section
354 mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman
is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any
deliberate intention having such outraged alone for
its object. There is no abstract conception of
modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State
of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63). A
careful approach has to be adopted by the Court
while dealing with a case alleging outraged of
modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 354 IPC are as under:
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal
force on her, and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used
on the woman intending thereby to outrage
CRL. REV. PET. 528/2017 Page 3 of 5
Intention is not the sole criteria of the offence
punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be
committed by a person assaulting or using criminal
force to any woman, if he knows that by such act
the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected.
Knowledge and intention are essentially things of
the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical
objects. The existence of intention or knowledge
has to be culled out from various circumstances in
which and upon whom the alleged offence is
alleged to have been committed. A victim of
molestation and indignation is in the same position
as an injured witness and her witness should
receive same weight.
10. Undisputedly, the testimony of the victim remained unrebutted.
Her version on oath in Court (PW-1) is fully corroborative of the
version given by her in the rukka pursuant to which the present FIR
had been registered. However, it appears that that the petitioner
may be having remorse of the act done by him and was also
conscious of the disrespect/abuse caused to the complainant which
led the petitioner in not rebutting/refuting the allegations made
against him. The act appears to have happened in a spur of
moment without any physical force. The petitioner has no previous
CRL. REV. PET. 528/2017 Page 4 of 5
criminal record having responsibility of four daughters and three
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the sentence is modified to the period already undergone.
However, imposition of fine remains unaltered.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
13. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner stands cancelled and sureties
14. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
NOVEMBER 16 , 2017
CRL. REV. PET. 528/2017 Page 5 of 5