The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of an accused charged with sexual harassment and stalking, ruling that Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be treated as a “minor offence” under Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) when the primary charge is under Section 354A IPC. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that since the ingredients and punishments of the two sections differ significantly, the court could not invoke its power to convict the accused for a charge that was never framed.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that on March 20, 2013, at approximately 10:00 PM in Naraina Village, New Delhi, the accused used criminal force upon a 17-year-old girl (PW2). According to the First Information Statement (FIS), the victim was returning from a common bathroom to her room when the accused grabbed her hand. She managed to free herself, locked herself in her room, and the accused allegedly followed her, banged on the door, and used “filthy abuses.”
The accused was charged under Sections 354A (Sexual harassment), 354D (Stalking) of the IPC, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. On January 29, 2015, the trial court acquitted the accused of all charges. The State subsequently moved the High Court in appeal under Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Arguments of the Parties
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State argued that the testimony of the victim (PW2) remained consistent and was not discredited. The State contended that the incident occurred late at night while the victim was alone, demonstrating the accused’s intent. The State further argued that the burden shifted to the accused under the statutory presumption of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which he failed to discharge.
The counsel for the respondent/accused maintained that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment and that the acquittal should not be disturbed.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court re-examined the oral and documentary evidence, including the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Justice Sudha observed that while the conduct of the accused—grabbing a stranger’s hand at night—amounted to the use of “criminal force” with the intent to outrage modesty, it did not strictly satisfy the specific ingredients of the charges framed.
On Sections 354A, 354D IPC and POCSO: The Court noted that the “alleged overt acts of the accused apparently do not fall under Sections 354A IPC, 354D IPC or Section 12 of the POCSO Act.” It explained that Section 354A requires unwelcome sexual conduct or explicit sexual remarks, while Section 354D requires repeated contact despite disinterest.
On Section 354 IPC (Outraging Modesty): The Court observed that the act of grabbing the victim’s hand without consent “certainly amounts to use of criminal force” and was “sexually coloured,” intended to outrage her modesty. However, the Court highlighted a critical procedural gap: “no Charge under Section 354 IPC has been framed against the appellant/accused.”
Legal Interpretation of Section 222 Cr.P.C.: The Court then examined whether it could convict the accused under Section 354 IPC as a “minor offence” despite the lack of a formal charge. Citing S.M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka (2001), the Court held:
“Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as a minor offence, vis-a-vis the other offence.”
The Court found that the ingredients of Section 354 and 354A are distinct. Furthermore, it noted that the punishment for certain sub-sections of 354A is lesser than that of Section 354. Therefore, Section 354 IPC cannot be termed a minor offence relative to Section 354A IPC.
Decision
The High Court concluded that since Section 354 IPC was not a minor offence and no charge had been framed under it, there were no grounds for interference with the acquittal.
The Court stated:
“In these circumstances, neither sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 222 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in this case. Hence, I find no ground for interference.”
The appeal was dismissed as being without merit.
Case Details
Case Title: State vs. Nitu Singh
Case No.: CRL.A. 265/2018
Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: April 28, 2026
