ASHOK KUMAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner - Ashok Kumar to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 26.10.2015 of learned Add. Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No. 49/15 arising out of FIR No. 22/11 under Sec. 354 IPC at PS Dhaula Kuan by which conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide orders dated 28.08.2015 and 11.09.2015 were upheld. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under Sec. 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for six months with fine Rs. 5,000/ -. Revision petition is contested by the State. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge -sheet was that on 01.02.2011 at about 01.00 p.m. at PET/CT, Centre Army Hospital (Research and Referral) Delhi Cantt, the petitioner outraged the modesty of the victim 'X' (assumed name). The incident was reported to the police on 02.02.2011 by the victim and on her written complaint (Ex. PW -2/A), Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against him in the Court. To establish its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He examined himself as DW -1 in his defence. After hearing rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Sec. 354 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned previously. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence unsuccessfully in Crl.A. No. 49/15.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and erred to base conviction on the testimonies of interested witnesses. No independent witness was associated at any stage of investigation. The complainant/victim had purportedly apprised Dean and the Head of the Department soon after the occurrence, however they were not cited and examined. It being a 'Maintenance Day' on 01.02.2011, many officials from Siemens India Ltd. were available at the spot; none of them was joined in the investigation. The story presented by the complainant is improbable as she did not raise hue and cry on the way to the Console area. Delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons prevail to disbelieve the victim who had no extraneous consideration to implicate the appellant.

(3.) The occurrence whereby 'X', a second year DNB student in the Department of Nuclear Medicine, Army Hospital (R & R) suffered physical sexual harassment at the hands of the petitioner occurred at around 01.00 p.m. on 01.02.2011. In her complaint (Ex. PW -2/A), she categorically named the petitioner to be the perpetrator of the crime and assigned a specific and definite role to him. She informed the police that at around 01.00 p.m. when she -requested the petitioner to show her leave register of the trainees, he told her to come to his office. She went towards his chamber adjacent to her 'Trainee' room and he showed her the register. When she turned towards her Trainee' room, the accused tried to pull her inside the chamber and also tried to hug and kiss her. She pushed him away and rushed towards the 'Trainee' room. However, she was followed by the accused and he tried to bully and scare her. She immediately called her husband on phone and it made the accused to leave.