[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Kuldeep vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delh on 21 April, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.04.2025
+ CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 & CRL.M (BAIL) 1195/2024
KULDEEP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Sahni (DHCLSC),
with Mr. Ankur, Mr. Parth
Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav
Mishra, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State, with S.I. Sumit Singh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. By way of this revision petition, the revisionist has assailed his
conviction for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354B, and 506
(Part II) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] in case arising
out of FIR No. 56/2017, registered at Police Station I.P. Estate,
Delhi. The revisionist was convicted by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate (Mahila Court)-01, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereafter
„Trial Court‟] vide judgment dated 01.11.2019 and order on sentence
dated 16.09.2020 was passed thereafter. His appeal (Crl. Appeal No.
158/2020) against his conviction, filed before learned Additional
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
Sessions Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereafter
„Appellate Court‟] was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.01.2024
and order on sentence dated 27.03.2024.
2. As per the charge sheet, the case arises out of an incident dated
24.02.2017. At around 9:00 PM, upon receipt of DD No. 31 PP, ASI
Promod Kumar, along with Constable Amresh Kumar, had reached
the place of occurrence, i.e., DDU Marg, near Narayan Dutt Bhawan.
There, they had met the complainant „R‟, who had informed the
police officials that the accused had misbehaved with her. The
complainant had thereafter been taken to LNJP Hospital for medical
examination in respect of the injuries sustained by her. Subsequently,
the complainant was brought to the police chowki, where she stated
that she would return the next morning to lodge a formal complaint.
On the following day, the complainant had arrived at the police
station and handed over a written complaint. In her complaint, she
alleged that on the previous evening, around 9:00 PM, while she was
walking along the roadside at DDU Marg, the accused, namely
Kuldeep, had approached her from behind, covered her mouth, and
threatened to kill her if she made any noise. It was further alleged
that the accused had inserted his hand inside her kurta, pressed her
breasts, and attempted to remove her clothes. However, upon her
raising an alarm, the accused had fled from the spot. Thereafter, the
complainant, along with the police officials, had searched for the
accused and made inquiries with members of the public regarding his
whereabouts. The accused was eventually located at Mahavat Khan
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
Road, and upon identification by the complainant, he was arrested in
connection with the present case.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed
for offence under Sections 354, 354B, and 506 of IPC. On
21.09.2017, charges for offence under Sections 354, 354B, and 506
(Part II) of IPC were framed against the revisionist, and trial
commenced.
4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined seven
(07) witnesses. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the
statement of the revisionist (accused) under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
was recorded. Upon hearing final arguments, the learned Trial Court
convicted the revisionist for offences under Sections 354, 354B, and
506 (Part II) of IPC vide judgment dated 01.11.2019 and sentenced
him, vide order on sentence dated 16.09.2020, in the following
manner:
i. Simple imprisonment for 01 year alongwith payment of fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of
IPC, and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment
for 10 days.
ii. Simple imprisonment for 03 years alongwith payment of fine
of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354B of
IPC, and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment
for 10 days.
iii. Simple imprisonment for 02 years alongwith payment of fine
of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
(Part-II) of IPC, and in default, to undergo further simple
imprisonment for 10 days.
iv. All the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.
5. Aggrieved by his conviction, the revisionist preferred an
appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide
the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2024. The conviction recorded
as well as the sentence awarded to the revisionist was upheld by the
learned Appellate Court.
6. The revisionist has now approached this Court by way of this
revision petition, seeking to assail the legality and correctness of the
judgments passed by both the learned Trial Court and the learned
Appellate Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has assailed
the impugned judgments, primarily, on three grounds. Firstly, it is
contended that the testimony of the complainant does not find
corroboration from any independent or public witnesses. It is
submitted that even though it is the prosecution‟s case that the spot of
the incident was a busy road with considerable traffic and several
members of the public were present, no public witness was examined
by the I.O., which, according to the learned counsel, casts serious
doubt on the veracity of the complainant‟s version. Therefore, it
contended that sole testimony of the complainant could not have been
relied upon to convict the present revisionist. Secondly, the learned
counsel argues that there are material contradictions in the various
statements made by the complainant, which render her versionSignature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
unreliable and unworthy of credit. Thirdly, it is argued that the
revisionist has been falsely implicated due to his close association
with the family of one Dhanbhai. According to the learned counsel,
the complainant harboured ulterior motives and initiated the present
proceedings with the intent to extort money from the revisionist. It is
also submitted that the complainant is a habitual drunkard, known to
demand money from persons under various pretexts and it was only
when the revisionist refused to comply with the alleged monetary
demands of the complainant, that he was falsely roped into the
present case.
8. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the
present revision petition, submitting that the impugned judgments of
the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court suffer from
no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warranting
interference by this Court. It is argued that both courts below have
meticulously appreciated the evidence on record, including the
consistent and cogent testimony of the complainant, and have duly
considered and dealt with all arguments advanced on behalf of the
accused. The learned APP for the State further submits that the
absence of public witnesses does not, by itself, render the prosecution
case doubtful, particularly when the victim‟s testimony is found to be
trustworthy and reliable. It is contended that the conviction has been
rightly recorded on the basis of clear and sufficient evidence, and no
ground for revising the impugned judgment is made out.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
9. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned
counsel for the revisionist as well as learned APP for the State, and
has perused the material placed on record.
10. Before appreciating the rival contentions raised by the learned
counsel, it shall be relevant to succinctly discuss the scope of a
revision petition, challenging the judgments pertaining to conviction
of an accused passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. It is
well-settled that the High Court in criminal revision against
conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction akin to the
appellate court and the scope of interference is limited. Section 397
of the Cr.P.C. vests jurisdiction for the limited purpose of satisfying
the Court as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such trial court. It is also well settled that while
considering the same, the Revisional Court cannot dwell at length
upon the facts and evidence of the case. In this regard, it was held in
the case of Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2022) 8
SCC 204 as under:
“12. As per the settled legal position and after conviction by
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on filing the revision
the High Court maintained the conviction upholding the
findings of the two courts. The High Court found the finding
recorded by the two Courts to serve the sentence consecutively
by the appellant and the other co-accused were not correct,
hence set aside and directed to run such sentence concurrently.
13. In our considered opinion, the finding of fact as recorded
by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court has rightly not been
interfered while maintaining the conviction against the
appellant. On the issue of sentence also the direction as issued
by the High Court is in consonance with the provisions ofSignature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
Section 31 of Cr.P.C which confer full discretion to the Trial
Court as well as Appellate Court to order the sentences to run
concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences.”
11. Similarly, in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao:
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had
observed as follows:
“13. The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court under Section
397 Cr. P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for
and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any
proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such
proceedings….”
12. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court notes that
prosecution had examined seven witnesses, including the
complainant „R‟ (PW-1), the police officials who had reached the
spot of incident i.e. Constable Amresh Kumar (PW-4) and ASI
Pramod Kumar (PW-7), and other police witnesses and doctors
concerned. From the reading of testimony of PW-4 and PW-7, it
becomes clear that upon receipt of DD entry on 24.02.2017 at around
9 PM, they had reached the spot at Narayan Dutt Bhawan, DDU
Marg, where the complainant had informed them about the alleged
misbehaviour by the accused. She was thereafter taken to LNJP
Hospital for medical examination. Later, she had come to the police
station the next morning and handed over a written complaint, on the
basis of which the present FIR was registered. The police officials,
along with the complainant, had then gone for the search of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
accused and apprehended him at Mahavat Khan Road, where he was
identified by the complainant and arrested thereafter.
13. PW-1 i.e. the complainant „R‟ deposed before the learned Trial
Court that on 25.02.2017, at about 9 PM, she was going to Hanuman
Temple, Connaught Place, through DDU Marg Road. While she was
walking on the footpath, the accused Kuldeep had come and caught
hold of her from behind. He then had put his hand on her mouth and
threatened her by saying “agar shor machaya to jaan se maar dunga”
and thereafter he had put his hand inside her shirt and started pressing
her breasts. Thereafter, he had pulled her slacks downwards and had
tried to outrage her modesty by trying to make her naked. She had
raised an alarm as soon as the hands of the accused were removed
from her mouth and thereafter, the accused had fled from the spot.
The complainant had then called the police at the spot. She further
deposed that some dweller told the address of the accused and he was
later arrested by the police. The complainant, during the course of
recording of her testimony, had correctly identified the revisionist.
14. Since the scope of a revision petition is limited, as already
discussed above, it shall be important to now address the three-fold
argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist. At the outset, this
Court notes that the said arguments and contentions have already
been dealt with by the learned Appellate Court, in detail, in the
impugned judgment dated 30.01.2024. However, for the sake of
completeness, this Court shall now deal with the same.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
15. The first argument of the revisionist pertains to the non-
examination of any public witness by the prosecution, despite the
claim that the place of incident was a busy road, and that the sole
testimony of the complainant is insufficient to convict the revisionist.
In this regard, this Court is of the opinion that the said argument is
without merit. It is a settled position of law that conviction for
offences involving sexual assault can be based solely on the
testimony of the complainant, provided her version is found to be
natural, consistent, and trustworthy. The absence of independent
public witnesses does not, by itself, cast doubt on the prosecution‟s
case, especially in cases of sexual offences, which may occur in
circumstances where public presence is either minimal or those
present may choose not to get involved. In the present case, it is also
important to note that the complainant never stated that there were
public persons who had witnessed the incident. Merely because no
public witness was examined cannot be a ground to discard the
otherwise credible testimony of the complainant. If the version of the
complainant inspires confidence, there is no legal mandatory
requirement for further corroboration. More so, such incidents as the
present one are committed not in the presence of witnesses and rather
the perpetrator takes advantage of absence of people around or
secluded or dark places etc. In view of the same, this argument
advanced on behalf of the revisionist is liable to be rejected.
16. The second contention of the learned counsel for the
revisionist is that there are several contradictions in the statements of
the complainant, which render her version unreliable and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
untrustworthy. Insofar as this contention is concerned, this Court is of
the opinion that the overall testimony of the complainant has
remained consistent and credible on all material aspects of the case.
A cogent stand has been taken by the complainant, particularly with
respect to the presence of the revisionist at the spot on 24.02.2017 at
about 9 PM; the revisionist grabbing the complainant from behind;
placing his hand on her mouth while simultaneously threatening to
kill her; putting his hand inside her shirt and pressing her breasts; and
thereafter, pulling her slacks in an attempt to disrobe her and thereby
outrage her modesty. Her testimony further remains consistent with
respect to the arrival of the police at the scene and her statement
being recorded by the concerned officials on the day following the
incident. While there may be some minor contradictions in the
statements of the complainant, they do not go to the root of the
prosecution‟s case and are not sufficient to discredit the overall
version of the complainant. As regards the contradiction in the
statements of the complainant regarding the arrest of the revisionist,
the same stands established by the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-7
and is a matter of record. The alleged contradiction regarding the
complainant‟s knowledge of the revisionist – wherein she stated
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that the accused used to frequently visit
the jhuggis near her house and was known to her, but later in cross-
examination stated that she did not know the revisionist personally
though she had seen him drinking and playing cards near the roadside
– has no material bearing. The complainant‟s consistent position is
that while she had seen the revisionist around her locality, she was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
not personally acquainted with him. Such discrepancy, if any, is
minor and does not undermine the trustworthiness of her account. In
view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the said contention,
and agrees with the view taken by the learned Appellate Court in
rejecting this argument.
17. Lastly, it has been argued that the revisionist herein was falsely
implicated by the complainant since he was closely related to one
Dhanbhai, with whom the complainant had animosity, and therefore,
she allegedly implicated the revisionist out of malice. It was further
contended that the complainant is a habitual drunkard, known to
demand money from various individuals, and it was only when the
revisionist refused to comply with such monetary demands that he
was falsely roped into the present case. As regards this contention, it
is material to note that no such specific defence was taken by the
accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded before
the learned Trial Court. In response to the questions put to him, the
accused simply stated: “I am innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the present case due to enmity and pressurized me to
grab the money from me,” without elaborating on any specific
connection with Dhanbhai or the complainant’s alleged conduct.
Though certain questions regarding the alleged animosity and
relationship with Dhanbhai were put to the complainant during her
cross-examination, nothing substantial emerged to discredit her
version. In fact, the complainant categorically stated, “It is correct
that I have a dispute with Smt. Dhan Bai and his family. But I have
no knowledge that the accused person having good relation with
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
Dhan Bai family.” Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the
accused did not examine any defence witness, including the said
Dhanbhai, to substantiate the alleged motive for false implication. As
far as the contention that the complainant is a habitual drunkard who
extorts money from others is concerned, it is merely an
unsubstantiated allegation raised for the first time at the appellate
stage. The accused has neither examined any witness to support this
claim nor brought on record any complaint made either by himself or
any other person against the complainant regarding such behaviour.
In the absence of any cogent material or credible evidence to support
these assertions, this Court finds no merit in the argument, and the
same is liable to be rejected.
18. The revisionist has been convicted for offence under Section
354 of IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force to woman with
intent to outrage her modesty; Section 354B of IPC, which deals with
assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe; and
Section 506 (Part II) of IPC, which deals with punishment for
criminal intimidation, if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.
Clearly, taking into consideration the testimony of the complainant,
the essential ingredients of all these offences are fulfilled.
19. In this Court‟s opinion, the learned counsel for the revisionist
has not been able to point out any patent error, infirmity or perversity
with the impugned judgments rendered by the learned Trial Court
and learned Appellate Court.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
20. The conviction of the revisionist is accordingly upheld. Since
the courts below have already adopted a lenient view and awarded
minimum sentences to the revisionist, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the quantum of sentence awarded to the revisionist.
21. The present revision petition, alongwith pending application, is
dismissed.
22. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
APRIL 21, 2025/ns
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 920/2024 Page 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:17:39
[ad_2]
Source link