This criminal appeal was filed by the State under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated August 22, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had acquitted the respondent-accused of offences under Section 354A of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The Delhi High Court evaluated the evidence and found that while the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the minority of the prosecutrix (rendering the POCSO Act inapplicable), the core testimony of the prosecutrix regarding stalking and unwelcome physical contact (touching her cheeks) remained consistent and credible. The High Court strongly rebuked the trial court’s reliance on irrelevant factors such as the victim’s clothing or local orthodox objections, emphasizing that a woman’s choice of attire is her personal choice and never an invitation or justification for harassment. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC, directed the accused to appear for a hearing on sentencing, and issued a circular of caution to the district judiciary regarding the protection of witness dignity during cross-examination.
- Factual Background:
- On July 17, 2013, the prosecutrix (PW4), a 17-year-old girl, alleged that the respondent (Sajid Ali) repeatedly stalked her, made sexually colored remarks, and touched her cheeks without consent near Lal Kuan, Delhi.
- An FIR was registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, and following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 354A, 354D IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The trial court subsequently acquitted the accused of all charges.
- Determination of Age (POCSO Act):
- The prosecution relied on a birth certificate (Ext. PW5/A) indicating the date of birth as November 20, 1996.
- However, the testimony of the Sub-Registrar (PW5) and the birth registers revealed that the birth was registered after 13 years without any SDM order or corresponding entry in the 1996 register. Thus, the High Court upheld the finding that minority was not satisfactorily established, taking the case out of the ambit of the POCSO Act.
- Assessment of Sexual Harassment (Section 354A IPC):
- The High Court noted that the trial court had wrongly focused on peripheral issues, such as the identity of the police caller, minor time discrepancies in the arrest memo, and non-investigation of a counter-complaint filed by locals regarding the victim’s clothes and lifestyle.
- The prosecutrix’s testimony consistently established that the accused subjected her to unwanted physical contact (touching her cheeks) and sexually colored remarks.
- The Court asserted that even if a woman chooses to wear western attire, it does not strip her of her right to bodily privacy and protection under the law.
- Judicial Strictures & Directives:
- The Court strongly criticized the line of cross-examination adopted by the defense counsel that targeted the victim’s clothing and religion, reminding presiding judges of their duty to intervene when cross-examination turns into character assassination or harassment.
- Copies of the judgment were ordered to be circulated to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and the Delhi Judicial Academy for sensitization.
- Final Judgment & Next Steps:
- The appeal was allowed in part; the acquittal under Section 354A IPC was reversed, and the respondent-accused was convicted under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.
- The matter was posted for a hearing on sentencing under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C..
