A sessions court in Delhi has recently upheld the order of a magisterial court acquitting two men accused of outraging the modesty of a woman, noting the “material contradictions” in her allegations.
The court observed a dispute over property between the parties and, to settle a personal score, the woman made a complaint with the allegations that her modesty got outraged.
Additional Sessions Judge Satish Kumar heard the revision petition against the magisterial court’s order of discharge of the accused Pratap Singh and Ajay Rana in April 2022.
In a recent judgment, the court noted that the complainant’s husband died in October 2016 following a heart attack and Singh was the woman’s brother-in-law.
It stated 3 days before filing a complaint on July 27, 2017, the complainant served a legal notice on Singh for “maligning her reputation”, seeking Rs 48 lakh within 15 days as damages.
Notably, the alleged incident occurred on July 20 and that the complainant didn’t inform the police on the day of the incident, the court stated that there was an “inordinate delay” in filing the complaint.
The court in its order stated, “Time and again, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in a number of judgments, have held that to settle the personal score between the parties, there is an alarming increase of cases under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 354 A (sexual harassment) only to use it against the persons and to make them agree to fulfil the demand of complainant, it added.
It said that there were “material contradictions” in the complainant’s allegations to the police and in her statement made before the magistrate, adding that these can’t be ignored.
The court futhure stated, “It appears that the main dispute is of property between the parties and to settle the personal score, a complaint was made with the allegations that her modesty had been outraged by the accused persons.”
Dismissing the revision petition, the court stated that there is no reason to interfere with the order of magisterial court.
