Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the accused under Section 3971 read with Section 4012 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to set aside the judgment dated 19-04-2024, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that if we truly aspire to uplift women, it was imperative that we first create an environment where they were safe, free from harassment, humiliation, and fear and that those who make the public spaces unsafe would be dealt with strictly. Until that happens, all discussions on women’s progress would remain superficial, since real empowerment begins with the right to live and move freely without fear. Thus, the Court stated that there was no patent illegality with the findings of the Trial Court and upheld the conviction of the accused.
Background
In the present case, it was alleged that the complainant was sitting on the ladies’ seat inside the bus and the accused sat just on the right side of the complainant, on men’s seat. While the bus had just moved a little distance, the accused started making gestures towards the complainant, but the complainant asked him to not do any such acts.
However, the accused started winking at the complainant, upon which the complainant got angry and slapped the accused. Thereafter, a person from the public asked the accused to leave the spot. When the seats got empty, the accused again came and sat on the seat next to her. It was further alleged that when the complainant got up to get-off the bus, the accused followed her, caught her and started kissing her on her lips. Even after repeated efforts of the complainant, the accused had not left her. Thereafter, the members of public caught hold of the accused and took him away.
Subsequently, the complainant and one another person brought the accused to the police station and handed him over to the police. On the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, the FIR was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3543 and 5094 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Trial Court held the accused guilty and accordingly convicted him.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that from a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court , it was clear that the complainant’s testimony had remained consistent on the core allegations against the accused. Even though there might be some minor discrepancies in her statements, including the one recorded under Section 1645 of CrPC, such as the exact seating arrangement and the nature of physical contact before the assault, these did not materially affect the prosecution’s case.
The Court stated that the accused’s conduct of persistently making inappropriate gestures, sitting close to the complainant despite objections, and ultimately forcibly kissing her demonstrated a clear act of use of gestures, criminal force and assault for outraging the modesty of the complainant. Such actions were not only indecent but were of a nature that would shock the sense of dignity and modesty of a woman, and would fall within the ambit of offences under Sections 354 and 509 of IPC.
Regarding the accused’s contention that he had been falsely implicated in this case since the victim was the daughter of a police officer, the Court stated that merely the fact that the victim was the daughter of a police officer, did not automatically imply false implication. The Court stated that the accused’s own argument contradicted this claim, as he himself conceded that the accused and the complainant were complete strangers.
The Court stated that despite the existence of strong laws aimed at protecting women from harassment and assault, incidents like these expose the audacity of perpetrators who act with impunity. The fear was not just about the crime itself, but about the apathy that often followed i.e., what if no one had stood by her and what if the bus was empty. Would she have been forced to suffer in silence, with no justice in sight.
The Court stated that the facts of the present case reflected a deeply concerning reality, that even after decades of independence, women continue to face harassment in public spaces, including public transport, 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 could evade consequences.
The Court stated that the facts of the case, and the acts of the accused reflect that girls were not safe even in public spaces today. The Court while adjudicating such cases, was also guided by the ultimate outcome of such cases, which would have a direct impact on the vital issue of women’s empowerment, equality, and upliftment. Public transport, which was meant to ensure mobility and independence, instead became a site of fear and vulnerability for the victim, and any undue leniency, to an accused caught at the spot, might embolden any future for perpetrators.
The Court stated that if we truly aspire to uplift women, it was imperative that we first create an environment where they were safe, free from harassment, humiliation, and fear and those who make the public spaces unsafe would be strictly dealt with. Until that happens, all discussions on women’s progress would remain superficial, since real empowerment begins with the right to live and move freely without fear.
Thus, the Court stated that there was no patent illegality with the findings of the Trial Court and upheld the conviction of the accused.
[Anupender v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1237, decided on 28-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Mahaur, Deenanath, Abhishek and Mohd. Shahzad, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)
3. Section 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
