* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : JANUARY 29, 2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 796/2014
AJIT SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr.Prag Chawla, Advocate.
STATE ….. Respondent
Through : Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Ajit
Singh to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated
18.11.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.14/2 by
which the findings of the learned Trial Court recorded by a judgment
dated 19.12.2013 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence
under Sections 323/354 IPC were confirmed. The Trial Court had
sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year
with fine `1,000/-. In appeal the substantive sentence was modified and
reduced to simple imprisonment for six months with fine `25,000/-.
The revision petition is contested by the respondent.
Crl.Rev.P.796/2014 Page 1 of 6
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial Court did
not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. There
was not enough material before the trial court to base conviction under
Sections 323/354 IPC. The victim’s statement was not corroborated by
any independent evidence; even her father did not support her version.
As per the information conveyed to the police, initially a quarrel had
taken place at the spot. The statement of the prosecutrix does not
inspire confidence as her husband and children present in the house did
not intervene; they were not cited as witnesses. The complaint against
the petitioner was motivated to avoid payment of `20,000/- borrowed
by the complainant from the petitioner’s wife.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the petitioner’s
conviction is based upon fair appreciation of evidence by the courts
below and no interference is called for.
4. Admitted position is that both the prosecutrix and the petitioner
lived nearby in the same locality and were acquainted with each other
prior to the incident.
5. The occurrence took place on 18.04.2005 at about 9.00 p.m. in
front of House No.G-11/A, Kanwar Singh Nagar, Nangloi. The
information about the incident was reported promptly and DD No.45B
came to be recorded at 9.15 p.m. at Police Station Nangloi regarding a
‘quarrel’ to have taken place at the spot. The investigation was assigned
to SI Joginder Singh (PW-6). After recording victim’s statement
(Ex.PW-2/A), the Investigating Officer lodged first information report
by sending rukka at 12.45 on the night intervening 18/19.04.2005. In
the complaint, the complainant implicated the petitioner for outraging
Crl.Rev.P.796/2014 Page 2 of 6
her modesty; she attributed specific and definite role to the petitioner in
the crime. Apparently, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The
petitioner was named in the FIR. There was least possibility of the
prosecutrix to have concocted a false story in such a short period. Soon
after the incident, the prosecutrix was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Hospital, Mangolpuri and was medically examined with MLC Ex.PW-
7/A. Arrival time at the hospital was recorded as 11.45 p.m.
6. In her court statement, the prosecutrix proved the version given
to the police at first instance without any variation. She deposed that at
about 9.00 p.m., when she was coming back to her house after
purchasing certain articles and reached in front of her house, the
accused Ajit Kumar came from front; stopped her and caught hold of
her right hand. The accused by the other hand started holding and
pressing her breast and thereafter tried to kiss her. She tried to rescue
herself from his clutches and in the process broke her bangles. She
raised hue and cry and rescued herself. She made a call at 100. She
further deposed that injuries were suffered by her on her wrist due to
breaking of bangles; she also sustained scratches on her breast due to
the acts of the petitioner. In the cross-examination, she informed that
the petitioner’s wife was known to her and she lived in her
neighbourhood nearby. She denied if there was any money transaction
between her and petitioner’s wife. She further denied to have borrowed
`50,000/- from the petitioner’s wife in the year 2004 or had to return
the balance amount of `20,000/-, which she denied to pay despite
repeated demands. She denied that the petitioner was falsely implicated
to avoid the said payment. She denied if a quarrel had taken place with
Crl.Rev.P.796/2014 Page 3 of 6
the petitioner’s wife on the day of incident. She deposed that after the
occurrence, the petitioner fled the spot threatening her.
7. On scanning the testimony of the complainant/victim, it reveals
that despite lengthy cross-examination, the defence could not elicit any
infirmity to disbelieve her version. The petitioner did not deny his
presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. No specific motive was
attributed to the complainant to suddenly make serious allegations of
sexual harassment against the petitioner with whom there was no prior
animosity or quarrel. No plausible evidence has come on record to show
if any money transaction or any dispute had taken place on the day of
incident between the complainant and the petitioner’s wife, as urged.
The petitioner was also unable to establish if `50,000/- were ever
borrowed by the complainant from his wife. It is unbelievable that the
complainant would level serious allegations of sexual harassment
against the petitioner to avoid payment of paltry sum of `20,000/- and
to bring herself to disrepute. No valid reasons exist to disbelieve the
testimony of the prosecutrix. She in her statement informed that after
the occurrence, she had made a call to her father. This has been
corroborated by PW-3 (Om Prakash), her father. He deposed that on
18.04.2005 her daughter had given a call at his residence at about 10.00
p.m. and had informed him about the quarrel and asked him to reach
immediately. He further informed that her daughter had given a call at
100 also. He immediately reached the Police Station and her daughter
was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. Had no incident been
taken place, there was no occasion for the complainant to make a call to
her father living at Chandpur Dabas, and to compel him to reach at odd
Crl.Rev.P.796/2014 Page 4 of 6
hours at the police station. Om Prakash was not the witness to the
incident. The plea that he did not support the prosecution in its entirety
is of no consequence.
8. Soon after the incident, efforts were made to apprehend the
petitioner; however, he was not traceable. The petitioner did not explain
as to what had prompted him to flee the spot and where he kept himself
hiding before his arrest on 10.05.2005.
9. Minor inconsistencies highlighted by the petitioner’s counsel are
inconsequential as they do not effect the core of the prosecution case.
The courts below have given concurrent findings recording the
petitioner’s guilt by minutely discussing all the relevant aspects. The
petitioner did not examine any witness in defence in whose presence the
alleged loan was given to the complainant by the petitioner’s wife.
10. The findings on conviction recorded by the courts below are
based on fair appreciation of the evidence and deserves no intervention.
The conviction is confirmed under Section 354 IPC.
11. Regarding Section 323 IPC, no hurt as such, was caused by the
petitioner to the complainant. Only in the process of committing
offence under Section 354 IPC, the complainant sustained simple hurt
on her body due to breaking of bangles which she was wearing at the
time of incident; hence there was no credible evidence on record that
the petitioner was guilty for commission of offence punishable under
Section 323 IPC. He deserves benefit of doubt and is acquitted under
Section 323 IPC.
12. Regarding sentence, the petitioner has been imprisoned for a
period of six months. It has come on record that the petitioner remained
Crl.Rev.P.796/2014 Page 5 of 6
in custody in this case for certain duration. Fine of `25,000/- has been
imposed. The petitioner is not a previous convict and is not involved in
any other criminal case. He is stated to be the only bread earner of the
family. He has old parents, wife and two minor children to take care of
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence
order is modified and the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment
for six months is reduced to simple imprisonment for three months.
Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.
14. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
15. The petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 8th
February, 2018 to serve out the remaining period of substantive
16. Copy of the order be sent to trial court for information.
JANUARY 29, 2018/sa
Crl.Rev.P.796/2014 Page 6 of 6