(1.) Feeling aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), South -East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 03.09.2014 in case FIR No.489/2011 under S. 354 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Govind Puri, the present appeal under S.378(1) (B) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State.
(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The complainant X had gone to gym on 09.12.2011 at around 8.15 am where accused was an instructor. After 10.30 am, when all the girls from the gym had left, the respondent /accused came to her and wanted to give massage to her on the ground that she was having pain while doing gym. Despite her refusal, he forcibly started giving massage to the complainant and while doing so, he pressed her thighs, touched her private parts and her breast also. Police was informed. Her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded which resulted in registration of the instant FIR. During the course of investigation, the respondent /accused was got arrested. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against him.
(3.) Charge for offence under S. 354 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 - complainant and PW2 Sub Inspector Sahiram - Investigating Officer of the case. In his statement under S. 313 Cr.PC, accused denied the case of prosecution. According to him, he was falsely implicated by the complainant. In fact, he was not employed with the gym ever. Vide the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2014, learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused primarily on the ground that in the cross examination of the complainant it had come that there was one more lady present inside the gym and that lady was not examined by prosecution. Since that lady was an independent witness, conviction could not be based on the solitary testimony of the complainant.