The Delhi High Court recently in Kuldeep v/s State Of NCT Of Delhi & Another., upheld the conviction of an individual in a case involving sexual assault and criminal intimidation, affirming the judgments of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The revision petition, filed by the accused, sought to challenge his conviction under Sections 354, 354B, and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from an incident in February 2017.

The Allegations and Conviction:

The case stems from an FIR registered at Police Station I.P. Estate, Delhi, following a written complaint by the victim, 'R'. According to her complaint, on the evening of February 24, 2017, while she was walking on DDU Marg, the accused, Kuldeep, approached her from behind, covered her mouth, and threatened her. She alleged that he then inserted his hand inside her kurta, pressed her breasts, and attempted to remove her clothes. Upon her raising an alarm, the accused fled the scene. The accused was later apprehended by the police with the complainant's identification.

Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and charges were framed against Kuldeep under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), and 506 (Part II) (criminal intimidation with threat to cause death or grievous hurt) of the IPC.

The Trial Court convicted Kuldeep on November 1, 2019, and subsequently sentenced him to simple imprisonment of one year under Section 354 IPC, three years under Section 354B IPC, and two years under Section 506 (Part II) IPC, with all sentences running concurrently. This conviction and sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court on January 30, 2024.

Defense Challenges and Court's Rejection:

The revisionist (accused) assailed the judgments primarily on three grounds:

1. Lack of Corroboration by Public Witnesses: It was argued that despite the incident occurring on a busy road, no independent public witnesses were examined, casting doubt on the complainant's veracity. The High Court rejected this, reiterating a settled legal position that conviction in sexual assault cases can be based solely on the victim's testimony if it is natural, consistent, and trustworthy. The court noted that the complainant never claimed public witnesses to the actual assault, and such incidents often occur where public presence is minimal or those present choose not to intervene.

2. Material Contradictions in Complainant's Statements: The defense alleged significant inconsistencies in the complainant's various statements, rendering her unreliable. The court, however, found that the complainant's overall testimony remained consistent and credible on all material aspects of the case, including the accused's presence, the nature of the assault, and the subsequent police involvement. Minor contradictions, such as her initial familiarity with the accused versus later statements, were deemed insignificant and not undermining her trustworthiness.

3. False Implication Due to Ulterior Motives: The revisionist claimed he was falsely implicated due to his association with a certain "Dhanbhai," with whom the complainant allegedly had animosity, and that the complainant, a "habitual drunkard," was attempting to extort money. The court dismissed these claims, noting that no specific defense regarding Dhanbhai or extortion was raised in the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The complainant also denied knowledge of the accused's relationship with Dhanbhai, and the accused failed to present any defense witnesses or evidence to substantiate his allegations of extortion or the complainant's purported habits.

Scope of Revision and Upholding of Conviction:

The High Court emphasized its limited scope in a criminal revision petition, which is not an appeal but focuses on the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding or sentence, and the regularity of proceedings. It affirmed that it would not re-evaluate facts or evidence at length.

After carefully considering the arguments and perusing the record, the court found no patent error, infirmity, or perversity in the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The court concluded that the complainant's testimony, which remained consistent on material aspects of the assault, fulfilled the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 354, 354B, and 506 (Part II) IPC.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the conviction of the revisionist and declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence, noting that the lower courts had already awarded minimum sentences. The revision petition was thus dismissed.

Section 354., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 313., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973