The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, set aside the acquittal of a man accused of sexually harassing a minor girl, ruling that a woman’s choice to wear jeans or any attire of her choice can never serve as a justification or excuse for unlawful conduct against her. The Court found Sajid Ali guilty of sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), reversing a trial court’s order of acquittal, while upholding his acquittal under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act due to unproven age records.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on July 17, 2013, near Makbara Rodgran in the Hauz Qazi area of Delhi. According to the prosecution, the victim (PW4) reported that Sajid Ali had been repeatedly stalking her and making sexually coloured remarks. On the evening of the incident, while she was returning home after fetching medicines, Ali approached her, touched her cheek, and threatened her when she objected.
Based on her complaint, an FIR (Crime No. 110/2013) was registered at Hauz Qazi Police Station. The police filed a chargesheet alleging offences under Sections 354A and 354D of the IPC, alongside Section 12 of the POCSO Act. On October 21, 2013, the trial court framed charges under Section 354A IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
However, on August 22, 2014, the Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, acquitted the accused. The trial court cited several grounds, including the prosecution’s failure to establish the victim’s age, minor discrepancies regarding the time of arrest and location where the complaint was recorded, non-examination of independent witnesses, and the failure of the investigating officer to probe complaints made by local residents against the victim regarding her choice of clothing and conduct. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Arguments Presented
The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argued that the victim had remained consistent across her initial statement, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her testimony before the trial court. The State contended that minor discrepancies in police investigation or witness statements did not affect the core prosecution narrative and prayed for a conviction.
Counsel for the respondent-accused submitted that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s acquittal. It was argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident, making the POCSO Act inapplicable. To support this, the defense highlighted that the birth certificate relied upon by the prosecution was issued in 2009—13 years after her birth—without any entry in the official birth register or supporting order from a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM).
Furthermore, the defense asserted that local residents had submitted written complaints to the police complaining that the victim wore objectionable western clothes during Ramzan and corrupted young boys in the locality. The defense claimed the accused was falsely implicated at the instance of the victim and local police officials due to his past criminal antecedents.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Examining the evidence, the High Court evaluated the case under two distinct heads: the POCSO Act charge and the IPC charge.
1. POCSO Act Charge
Regarding the applicability of the POCSO Act, the High Court concurred with the trial court. Reviewing the testimony of the Sub-Registrar of Births and Deaths (PW5), the Court noted that the birth register produced for 1996 contained no entry corresponding to the victim’s birth certificate. Additionally, no SDM order sanctioning delayed registration after 13 years was available. Relying on this, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt, making the invocation of the POCSO Act unsustainable.
2. Section 354A IPC Charge and Defective Investigation
However, regarding the offence under Section 354A IPC, the High Court held that the trial court’s reasons for acquitting the accused were erroneous. Citing established legal precedents—including C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab, and Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar—the Court emphasized that procedural lapses or minor defects in investigation (such as discrepancies in arrest time or place of writing the complaint) cannot by themselves ground an acquittal if the victim’s core testimony is reliable and unblemished.
Addressing the trial court’s criticism of the investigating officer for not probing complaints (Ext. PW2/DA and Ext. DW1/A) lodged by local residents against the victim, the High Court observed that these complaints disclosed no cognizable offence under any statutory law. The Court noted that the “crime” alleged against the victim was merely residing alone with her mother and wearing jeans and western clothing.
3. Strictures on Attire, Character Assassination, and Defense Cross-Examination
The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the cross-examination conducted by defense counsel, who questioned the victim about wearing “western tight clothes”—to which she clarified that she wore normal jeans and top—and introduced considerations of local religion and custom.
Reiterating principles from State of U.P. v. Raghubir Singh and State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Marlokar, the High Court emphasized:
“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.”
Refuting defense submissions that local customs dictate dress codes, the Court observed:
“Neither religion nor local custom can be used to justify unlawful conduct or to impose restrictions upon the personal choices of a woman.”
“What a girl or woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal choice. Neither her neighbours, nor society, nor the accused, nor counsel appearing in a court of law has any right to dictate her clothing. It is simply none of their concern. The suggestion that a woman wearing jeans may ‘corrupt young boys’ reflects a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset.”
“Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes.”
4. Directives to the District Judiciary
The High Court issued a stern reminder to trial judges regarding their statutory duty under Sections 146 to 152 of the Evidence Act to prevent offensive questioning during trials:
“Whenever questions are irrelevant, indecent, scandalous, insulting or intended merely to annoy or humiliate a witness, the presiding judge must intervene without hesitation and stop such questioning at once. The Court cannot remain a silent spectator while the dignity of a witness is attacked under the guise of cross-examination.”
The Court directed that copies of the judgment be circulated to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and sent to the Delhi Judicial Academy for judicial training programs.
Decision of the Court
The High Court set aside the acquittal of Sajid Ali for the offence punishable under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC and convicted him accordingly. The Court directed the convict to appear before it on August 12, 2026, for the hearing on sentencing under Section 235(2) CrPC.
Case Title: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sajid Ali
Case No.: CRL.A. 1065/2016
Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: August 10, 2026
