LexKANWAR PAL SINGH GILL versus STATE (ADMN., U.T. CHANDIGARH) THRO SECRETARY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL v. STATE (ADMN., U.T. CHANDIGARH) THRO' SECRETARY AND ANR. JULY 27, 2005 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 341, 342, 352, 354, 355 and 509/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482: C Accused Police Officer allegedly outraged the modesty of prosecutrix, another office~omplaint against-No aciion by' ·ihi Po/ib'e .'Filing of criminal complaint f?efore the Chief Judicial Magistrate-Proceedings before CJM quashed by High Court in the Revision petition preferred by the accused-Challenge to-Supreme Ccurt directed the trial Court to take D cognizance of the offence under Sections 354 and 509-Trial Court found accused guilty of committing crime under Sections 354 and 509 /PC and sentenced hitn accordingly and a!so imposed fine-Sentence altered by the Court of Sessions directing payment of compensation to victim-Affirmed by High Court enhancing the compensation-Correctness of-Held: No evidence produced to suggest that thr: prosecutrix acted in connivance with others E and hatched a conspiracy to malign the accitsed-Behaviour of the accused was not consistent with the high standard expected of a top-ranking police officer-Accused knowingly with the intent to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix useg criminal force against her in the presence of high dignitaries-Ingredients of Section 354 satisfied-Courts below rightly F arrived at findings of fact-Hence order of High Court cannot be set aside on mere assertion by the accused that the case was falsely foisted against him with ulterior motive-Since accused had completed the period of probation without a11)l complaint/violation of terms of the bond, it is not just and proper to resort ·10 any .other punishment. G Accused-appellant, a top ranking police officer, allegedly outraged modesty of the pr~secutrix, another officer in a dinner party hosted by the Secretary to the Government of Punjab. The prosecutrix made a complaint to Police but no action was taken by them. Husband of the victim filed a complaint against accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused preferred II 834 KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL'" STATE (ADMN., U.T. CHAND!.) THRO' SECY. 835 a criminal revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court quashed the A complaint and further proceedings pursuant to the case registered by the Police. The verdict of the High Court was challenged by the prosecutrix and her husband before this Court. This Court directed the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 354 and 504. Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment accordingly and also imposed fine. B Court of Sessions confirmed the conviction but altered the sentence and directed that the accused be released on probation and enhanced the fine with the direction to pay half of it as compensation to the victim. High Court affirmed the conviction but enhanced the fine with a direction to pay the entire amount to the victim. Hence the present appeal and the cross appeal. C Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is true that there was some delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate, but that by itself was not sufficient to reject the complaint put forward by the prosecutrix-officer. She recounted the entire D incident immediately to the Chief Secretary and other officers and raised objections and also sought for stringent action against the accused, another police officer. When she failed in all these attempts, she and her husband filed the criminal complaint. There is nothing to suggest that the prosecutrix acted in connivance with some others and that she hatched a conspiracy to malign the accused. (839-B, C] E 1.2. The findings of the courts below is that the accused gently slapped on the posterior of the prosecutrix in the presence of some guests. This act on the part of the accused would certainly constitute the ingredient of Section 354 IPC. It is proved that the accused used criminal force with intent to F outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix and that he knew fully well that gently slapping on the posterior of the prosecutrix in the presence of other guests would embarrass her. Knowledge can be attributed to the accused that he was fully aware that touching the body of the prosecutrix at that place and time would amount to outraging her modesty. Had it been withou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.