Stranger grabbing girl’s hand without consent is ‘criminal force’ to outrage modesty: Delhi High Court

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha pronounced the order on April 28.

“The conduct of the accused a stranger, in approaching PW2 (victim) at night while she was going to use the common washroom on their floor and further, catching hold of her hand without her consent certainly amounts to use of criminal force. PW2 became frightened, ran inside her room and bolted the door. Such conduct of the accused, by its very nature, is sexually coloured, and with the intention of the accused was to outrage the modesty,” the Delhi High Court order dated April 28 read.

Why court upheld acquittal

Upon examining the evidence, the Delhi High Court held that the ingredients of offences under sexual harassment and stalking were not made out on record. However, it observed that the accused’s act of catching the 17-year-old girl’s hand without consent did amount to the use of criminal force.

The court, however, refused to convict the accused under IPC Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), noting that no such charge had been framed during the trial.

“Even if the offence under Section 354A IPC (sexual harassment) is not made out, the proved facts clearly constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC. But, no Charge under Section 354 IPC has been framed against the appellant/accused,” the Delhi High Court said.

The incident

• The prosecution alleged that when the 17-year-old victim was returning from a common bathroom in her residential building, the accused grabbed her hand, prompting her to run into her room and lock herself inside.
• After she raised an alarm and called her parents, people gathered at the spot, and later the police took the accused into custody.
• The trial court framed charges against the accused but later acquitted him.
• The Delhi High Court reiterated the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, observing that if the main grounds on which the trial court has based its order, acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the high court should not disturb the order of acquittal.
• Though the accused was chargesheeted under IPC sections 354, 354A(i), (v), 354D, 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of woman) and the POCSO Act, the trial court framed charges only for the offences under IPC sections 354A, 354D, and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, the court said.
• The Delhi High Court held that the materials on record or the alleged overt acts of the accused did not fall under the aforementioned sections.
• It, therefore, dismissed the appeal against acquittal.

Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling

In another case, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the accused’s act of holding a woman’s hand and pulling her, saying “I love you”, outraged her modesty.

Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi was hearing a plea against the conviction of a man, who was 19 at the time of the incident.

The man was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment after being held guilty under various provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act for holding the victim’s hand and pulling her, saying “I love you” when she was allegedly returning from school.

“In the instant case, the appellant not only held hand of the victim, rather he also pulled her towards him by saying ‘I love you’. Such behaviour of a young boy with any girl particularly of rural area is considered highly objectionable,” the order said.