Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, underscoring the need for courts to send a strong message to society against harassment of women, upheld the conviction of a man for sexually harassing a girl on a public bus. The court emphasised that “silence and inaction empower offenders, and that every individual in society has a duty to stand against harassment and uphold the rule of law.”

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while dismissing the man’s plea challenging his conviction under Sections 354 (assault or use of criminal force to outrage a woman’s modesty) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), remarked that despite decades of independence, women continue to face harassment in public spaces, where they should feel safe and secure.

“Despite the existence of stringent laws aimed at protecting women‘s dignity and personal autonomy, incidents like these highlight the audacity of offenders who dare to commit such acts, believing they can evade consequences,” the court expressed.

The case concerned a man convicted for sexually harassing a girl on a public bus. According to the prosecution, the accused made inappropriate gestures and winked at the complainant despite her objections. When she slapped him, a co-passenger asked him to leave, but instead, the man forcibly held and kissed her on the lips, refusing to let her go.

The trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC, following which he challenged the verdict before the High Court.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated since the victim is the daughter of a police officer. It was further argued that the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to collect crucial evidence, such as bus tickets of the complainant, petitioner, and witnesses. However, in the same length the accused/petitioner stated he fell on the accused while travelling due to physical and mental disability. Moreover, it was contended that the complainant and petitioner were strangers and the prosecution failed to establish motive or intent, essential for proving the alleged offence.

Rejecting the arguments of the petitioner, the High Court noted that the testimonies of witnesses clearly revealed that the accused was apprehended by the public while indulging in the alleged acts.  The Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel argued that the investigating officer (I.O.) failed to seize the complainant’s bus ticket. However, the petitioner’s own defence—claiming that he had accidentally fallen on the complainant due to his physical disability—implicitly acknowledged the complainant’s presence in the bus, rendering the non-seizure of the ticket immaterial.

The court also found that the plea claiming mental and physical disability was not raised at any stage during the trial, which lasted over two years. The petitioner never filed an application regarding his alleged unfitness, making this contention meritless.

The court also rejected the argument for lack of motive due to non acquaintance between the complainant and the petitioner, stating that “Sexual offenses are often opportunistic crimes, and the absence of prior acquaintance or explicit motive does not negate the possibility of such an act being committed.”

The court also found the argument of false implication because the complainant was the daughter of a police officer baseless. It held, “the fact that she is the daughter of a police officer cannot be held against her, as if it was to act as a handicap to prevent her from filing a legitimate complaint regarding the molestation she faced in a public transport.”

The court lamented that the facts of the case exposed a harsh and unsettling truth and emphasised the duty of courts while adjudicating such cases.

The court stated: “the Court does not lose sight of the fact that, judgments in such cases play an important role of sending message to the society and to the community that believe in system can be trusted to not only punish the guilty but also the social context of such judgments that if we truly aspire to uplift women, it is imperative that we first create an environment where they are safe— free from harassment, humiliation, and fear and that those who make the public spaces too unsafe will be dealt with strictly. Until that happens, all discussions on women‘s progress will remain superficial—since real empowerment begins with the right to live and move freely without fear.”

Conclusively, finding no patent illegality with the findings of the trial court, the High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner.

 

Cause Title: Anupender v State of NCT of Delhi [CRL.REV.P.739/2024]

Appearance: For the Petitioner- Advocates Manoj Kumar Mahaur, Deenanath, Abhishek and Mohd. Shahzad; For the Respondent- APP for the State, Naresh Kumar Chahar.