KANWAR PAL SINGH GILLversusSTATE (ADMN., U.T. CHANDIGARH) THRO SECRETARY AND ANR.

A                            KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL
                                            v.
      STATE (ADMN., U.T. CHANDIGARH) THRO' SECRETARY AND ANR.

                                     JULY 27, 2005

B                [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 ofprosecutrix,
     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 offact-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 without any culpable
intention on the part of the accused, nobody would have taken notice of the G
incident. The prosecutrix made such a hue and cry immediately after the
incident and the reaction of the prosecutrix is very much relevant to take
note of the whole incident. The accused being a police officer of the highest
rank should have been exceedingly careful and failure to do so and by touching
the body of the complainant with culpable intention he committed the offence H
    836                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC. (839-D, E, F]

          1.3'. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the two courts and
    affirmed by the High Court, the order of the High Court cannot be set aside
    on the mere assertion by the accused that the whole incident was falsely foisted
    on him with ulterior motives. (839-G]
B
          2. The incident happened in 1988. Despite the accused holding a high
    position in the state police, the various courts found him guilty of the offence
    punishable ·under Sections 354 and 509 IPC and that by itself is setting a
    model for others and would enhance the faith in the judicial system. The
    accused had complet~d the period of probation. There was no occasion for any
C   complaint or violation of any of the terms of the bond. At this juncture, it is
    not just and proper to resort to any other punishment However, the amount
    of compensation ordered to be paid by way of compensation to the prosecutrix
    may be dealt with by the High Court in an appropriate manner as prayed for
    by her. (840-B-D)
D
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of
    1998.
                                                                               ''
         From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.98 of the Punjab and Haryana
    High Court in Cr!. R. No. 164of1998.
E
                                         WITH

            C.A. No. 430of1999.

        Aloke Kumar Sen Gupta, Parijat Sinha, Mrinal Kanti Manda!, Snehasish
F   Mukerjee, S.C. Ghosh, Suraj Prakash, Ms. Anindita Sen Gupta and Ms. Mifali
    Manda! for the Appellant

         Ms. Indirajaising, Sunil Kumar Jain, Manoj Swamp and Ms. Kamini
    Jaiswal with her for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1032
    of 1998 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 354 and
    509 of the Indian Penal Code. He challenges his conviction and sentence in
    this appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1999 has been preferred by the
H   complainant in that case and she prays that the punishment imposed on the
    KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL v. STATE (ADMN .. UT. CHANDIGARH) THRO' SECY. [BALAKRISHNAN, ll   SJ7

accused should be enhanced. Both the appeals are heard together and disposed                      A-
of by this common judgment.

       On 18. 7 .1988, a senior IAS officer, holding the post of Financial
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Punjab, invited some of the
IAS officers and JPS officer working at Chandigarh, for a dinner at 8.30 P.M.
at his residence in Sector 16 of Chandigarh. Apart from the IAS and IPS B
officers, there were a few advocates, including the Advocate General of the
State of Punjab and also some journalists and press correspondents working
with some leading newspapers. The guests assembled around 8.30 P.M. Ladies
were sitting in a semi-circle slightly away from the male guests. As per the
allegation in the complaint preferred by the husband of the prosecutrix, the C
accused, who was then the Director General of Police of the State of Punjab,
came and occupied a chair which was lying vacant at the place where the
ladies were sitting. The accused then called out the prosecutrix and asked her
to sit near him as he -wanted to talk to her about something. When the
prosecutrix was about to sit on the chair lying near the i;tccused, the latter
suddenly pulled the chair close to him and it is alleged that the prosecutrix D
felt slightly embarrassed and she managed to pull the chair back and sat on
it. The accused again tried to pull the chair close to his chair whereupon the
prosecutrix got up from the chair and returned to her original seat. The further
allegation is that about ten minutes later, the accused came near the prosecutrix
and asked her to come along with him. The prosecutrix strongly objected to E
his behaviour, but the accused was not prepared to change his tone and tenor
and again he asked the prosecutrix to accompany him. The prosecutrix further
alleged that she became frightened as the accused blocked her way and she
tried to get away from the place whereupon the accused slapped on the
posterior of the prosecutrix and the same was done in the presence of other
guests. The prosecutrix then made a complaint to the host and told him that F
the behaviour of the accused was obnoxious and that he was not fit for a
decent company. The accused was then gently removed from the place. The
prosecutrix made a complaint to the Joint Director, lnt~lligence Bureau, who
was present there. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband who
was also present there. On the next day, that is 19th July, 1988, the prosecutrix
sought an appointment with the Chief Secretary and recounted the entire G
incident to him and requested him to take suitabl~ action against the accused.
The prosecutrix met the Advisor to the Governor of Punjab and gave a full
and detailed account of the incident that had happened at the dinner party.
The prosecutrix explained the incident to the then Secretary to the Governor
and also met the Governor. On 29th July, 1988, the petitioner gave a written H
    838                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A   complaint to the police and a case was registered, but no further steps were
    taken. After about four months, the husband of the prosecutrix filed a complaint
    before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, alleging commission of
    offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, 355 and 509 IPC.
    Thereupon the accused preferred a criminal revision under section 482 of the
    Cr.P.C. and the High Court quashed the complaint as well as further proceedings
B   pursuant to the case registered by the police. The prosecutrix and her husband
    jointly challenged the ·verdict of the High Court before this court and the
    judgment of the High Court was set aside and the Chief Judicial Magistrate
    was directed to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 354 and 509
    IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate later framed the charges and after a full-
C   fledged trial the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under
    Section 354 and 509 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
    period of three months and pay a fine ofRs.500 for the offence under Section
    354; and for the offence under Section 509 IPC, punishment of simple
    imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs. 200 were imposed
    on the accused. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the Sessions Judge
D   confirmed the conviction, but altered the sentence and the accused was
    directed to be released on probation in lieu of custodial sentence. The fine
    was enhanced to Rs.50,000 with a further direction to pay half of it to the
    complainant. The accused challenged the same in the revision before the High
    Court. The High Court did not interfere with the conviction of the accused
E   under Section 354 and 509. However, the fine was enhanced to Rs.2,00,000
    and the entire amount was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix. An amount
    of Rs.25,000 was directed to be paid as costs by the accused. The judgment
    of the High Court is challenged by the accused as well as the complainant.

         The accused-appellant iri Criminal Appeal No. 1032/98 raised many
F contentions before us. The counsel for the appellant disputed the correctness
  of the findings on various grounds, and even the factual findings entered by
  the court were seriously disputed. It was contended that no such incident had
  happened and this was a part of a conspiracy to malign the appellant who
  had to take so many serious actions to control the activities of the militants
G which were at its peak during that time. It is alleged that the accused was able
  to control the militant operations of the terrorists and got commendations
   from the Government and other administrators and this was not liked by many
  top-ranking bureaucrats and as part of the conspiracy, the entire case was
  falsely foisted on him. It was also submitted by the appellant's counsel that
  the complaint itself was filed after a period of three months and the witnesses
H who were examined were all interested witnesses and most relevant witnesses
   KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL v. STATE (ADMN., U.T. CHANDIGARH) THRO' SECY. [BALAKRJSHNAN, J.)   839

who were alleged to have witnessed the occurrence were not examined. A A
pointed reference was also made to the non-examination of some of the
witnesses cited by the pro'Secution.

       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. It is important to note that she recounted the B
entire incident immediately to the Chief Secretary and other officers and raised
objections and also sought for stringent action against the accused. When
she failed in all these attempts, she and her husband filed th.e criminal
complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. There is nothing to suggest
that the prosecutrix acted in connivance with some others· and that ·she C
hatched a conspiracy to malign the accused. If the whole incident is viewed
in correct perspective, it is clear that the behaviour of the accused on the date
of the incident was not consistent with the high standard expected of a top"
ranking police officer. The findings of the various courts is to the effect 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 D '
the ingredient of Section 354 IPC. It is proved that the accused used _criminal
force with intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant 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 E
at that place and time would amount to outraging her modesty. Had it been
without any culpable intention on the part of the accused, nobody would
have taken notice of the incident. The prosecutrix made such a hue and cry
immediately after the incident and the reaction of the prosecutrix is very much
relevant to take note of the whole incident. The accused being a police officer
of the highest rank should have been exceedingly careful and failure to do F
so and by touching the body of the complainant with culpable intention he
committed the offence punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC. In view of
the findings of fact recorded by the two courts and ~ffirmed by the High
Court in revision, the order of the High Court cannot be set aside on the mere
assertion by the accused that the whole incident was falsely foisted on him
with ulterior motives. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by G
the accused. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

      In the appeal preferred by the complainant, learned senior counsel Ms.
Indira Jaising contended that crimes against women are on the rise and the
court should have dealt with the matter severely and the accused should not H
    840                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   have been released on probation.

          The incident happened in 1988. Despite the accused holding a high
    position in the state police, the various courts found him guilty of the offence
    punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC and that by itself is setting a model
    for others and would enhance the faith in the judicial system. The accused
B   had completed the period of probation. There was no occasion for any
    complaint or violation of any of the terms of the bond. At this juncture, we
    do not think that it is just and proper to resort to any other punishment. In
    our view, the criminal appeal No. 430 of 1999 preferred by the complainant
    against the judgment of the High Court is without any substance and the
    same is dismissed accordingly.
c
          The counsel for the appellant in this appeal submitted that the
    complainant has no intention of withdrawing Rs. 2 lacs ordered to be paid to
    her by way of compensation and that the amount may be given to any
    women's organization engaged in doing service for the cause of the women.
D   The amount may be lying now in the court deposit with the High Court of
    Punjab & Haryana. We leave the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court
    of Punjab & Haryana to deal with the said compensation amount in an
    appropriate manner as prayed for by the complainant. A copy of this judgment
    shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court of ~unjab & Haryana.

    S.K.S.                                                       Appeals alloweQ.