Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of an individual accused of outraging the modesty of a woman in a public bus. The petitioner sought relief against the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, but the court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring public safety, particularly for women using public transport.

The case originates from an incident on October 6, 2015, when the complainant boarded a bus on Route No. 817 from Khaira Mor to District Centre. The accused, identified as Anupender, boarded the same bus at Dausa stand and sat next to the complainant. It was alleged that he engaged in inappropriate behaviour, making repeated gestures towards the complainant despite her objections. Initially, the complainant ignored him, but as his actions persisted, she confronted him. According to the complainant, the accused started winking at her, which prompted her to slap him when the bus reached Dhauli Pyaau.

Following this incident, a bystander intervened and asked the accused to vacate his seat. However, as soon as more seats became available, the accused once again sat next to the complainant. Another individual from the public urged him to leave the seat, and the accused eventually moved to another seat. When the bus reached Janakpuri West Metro Station, the complainant got up to deboard, and at this point, the accused allegedly grabbed her and forcibly kissed her on the lips. Despite her struggle, he did not release her until members of the public intervened, apprehended him, and physically restrained him. He was subsequently taken to P.S. Vikaspuri, where a formal complaint was lodged.

Following the registration of the FIR, the police conducted an investigation, gathering testimonies from the complainant and other passengers. The chargesheet was filed, and the accused was tried under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to the use of criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty and insulting a woman's modesty through words or gestures, respectively.

The Metropolitan Magistrate found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented and sentenced him accordingly. The accused then appealed the conviction, but the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the trial court's judgement. The accused subsequently filed a revision petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the judgment on multiple grounds.

In examining the revision petition, the High Court noted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), noting that the revisional court does not function as an appellate authority but only examines the correctness, legality, or propriety of the findings.

The court relied heavily on the complainant’s testimony, which was consistent throughout the proceedings. It recorded: “The complainant has specifically stated that the accused was making indecent gestures by repeatedly winking, rolling his eyes at her, and blowing flying kisses. The testimony of the complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted in this regard.” The court noted that no material contradictions were found in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., reinforcing her credibility.

The presence of public witnesses further corroborated the prosecution’s case. The bus conductor and driver testified to the commotion in the bus following the altercation between the complainant and the accused. Additionally, an independent passenger, Sukhbir Sharma, confirmed that he saw the accused misbehaving with the complainant and witnessed the public restraining him. The court stated: “The presence of independent public witnesses, who were strangers to both the victim and the accused, and their willingness to testify freely reinforces the credibility of the prosecution's case.”

The defense argued that the accused was falsely implicated due to the complainant's father being a police officer. The court dismissed this contention, stating: “Merely because the father of the complainant is in the police force does not automatically imply that she has falsely implicated the accused.” It also observed that the accused provided no evidence to substantiate his claim of being framed.

The accused also contended that he was physically and mentally handicapped, making the allegations against him improbable. However, the court observed that no medical records or independent evidence were presented to prove that the accused had any physical or mental disability that would prevent him from committing the alleged acts. Additionally, no such plea had been raised during the trial, leading the court to reject this argument.

Another contention raised was that the investigating officer failed to collect crucial evidence, such as the bus tickets of the complainant, accused, and witnesses. The court, however, noted that the complainant’s presence in the bus was never disputed and that non-collection of bus tickets did not materially impact the case.

The accused also questioned the credibility of the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC), which initially stated that there were “no fresh external injuries” on the accused but was later modified to indicate a “linear abrasion on the forehead.” The accused argued that this discrepancy cast doubt on the prosecution's case. However, the court found that this inconsistency did not weaken the primary allegations against the accused and that the testimonies of the complainant and eyewitnesses were sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court further reflected on the broader implications of such crimes, stating: “The facts of the case reflect 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.” It stated that judgments in such cases must send a clear message that harassment in public spaces will be dealt with strictly.

The High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 354 and 509 IPC, stating that there was no “patent illegality” in the findings of the lower courts. The court noted that both the trial and appellate courts had properly evaluated the evidence and reached consistent conclusions.

The revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts were upheld.

Case Title: Anupender v. State of NCT of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1329
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 739/2024
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]