Woman's Dress Choice No Justification For Sexual Harassment: Delhi High Court

A woman's choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor serves as justification or condonation for unlawful conduct directed against her, held the High Court of Delhi. Overturning a trial court's acquittal order, the High Court convicted a man under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for sexually harassing a woman, despite the prosecution failing to establish her minority status under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha presided over the single-judge bench that heard the State's appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against a 2014 acquittal judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -01 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

The High Court examined the oral and documentary evidence, noting that the trial court erred in throwing out the core prosecution case due to minor defects in investigation, non-examination of independent witnesses, and failure to investigate local complaints against the victim's attire.

Addressing the improper line of cross-examination regarding the victim's apparel, the Court observed: "A woman’s choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor serves as justification or condonation for unlawful conduct directed against her. Questions founded upon regressive notions of how a woman ought to dress have no legitimate place in a court of law and cannot be permitted to become a device for character assassination or for blaming the prosecutrix."

Highlighting the role of the trial court during cross-examination, the Court noted: "Whenever cross-examination transgresses the bounds of relevance and propriety, or is employed as a means to intimidate, insult, harass or shame a witness, the Court must intervene promptly and decisively."

The Court issued specific directions to ensure proper trial conduct and Judicial sensitization across district courts:

The Court has following directions:
"A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi for circulation amongst the judicial officers under their respective jurisdictions. A copy shall also be sent to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy, with a direction that the concerns expressed in this judgment be brought to the notice of judicial officers through appropriate training and sensitization programmes."

Background

The prosecution alleged that on July 17, 2013, the accused repeatedly made sexually coloured remarks against a woman and committed aggravated sexual assault by touching her cheeks and hips in the Lal Kuan area of Delhi. An FIR was registered under Sections 354A and 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Hauz Qazi Police Station. The trial court framed charges under Section 354A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In defence, the accused submitted that local residents were annoyed with the prosecutrix over her attire and had lodged complaints against her. He claimed false implication in collusion with a police officer. The trial court acquitted the accused citing defects in investigation, failure to prove the victim's minority, and non-investigation of local complaints.

Reviewing the principles governing appeals against acquittals laid down in Babu Sahebogouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka ( "(2024) 8 SCC 149": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 191), Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, and Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka ( "(2007) 4 SCC 415": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 278), the High Court re-appreciated the evidence. Relying on decisions such as C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., Hema v. State, Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal ( "(2012) 8 SCC 263": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 306), Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand ( "(2012) 9 SCC 532": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 669), Sathi Prasad v. State of U.P, Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab, and Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar ( "AIR 1999 SC 644": 1999 CaseBase(SC) 562), the Court held that defective investigation by itself cannot ground an acquittal. The Court also affirmed that non-compliance with Section 232 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not vitiate proceedings unless serious prejudice is proved, referencing Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala.

Regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 charge, the Court found that the birth certificate produced by the Sub-Registrar lacked corresponding registry entries or an underlying SDM order, rendering her minority unproven. However, evaluating the Indian Penal Code, 1860 offence, the Court found the victim's testimony regarding unwelcome physical contact entirely consistent. Addressing her character attacks, the Court reiterated the principle in State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Marlokar ( "1991 KHC 863: AIR 1991 SC 207": 1990 CaseBase(SC) 363) and Ranvir Singh v. State of M.P. ( "1996 KHC 1447: (1996)11 SCC 595": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 1722) that even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and legal protection. Citing established precedents including Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana ( "1995 Supp (1) SCC 248": 1994 CaseBase(SC) 569), S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari ( "AIR 1970 SC 786": 1970 CaseBase(SC) 118), State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal ( "AIR 1992 SC 604": 1990 CaseBase(SC) 91), State of U.P. v. Raghubir Singh, Mahammad Mian v. Emperor, and Subala Das v. Indra Kumar Hazzva on trial procedures and evidence evaluation, the High Court set aside the trial court's acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 1065/2016
Case Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. SAJID ALI
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mohd. Iqbal and Mr. Kanwar Faisal, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 3731