The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration and reliability in the testimony of the prosecutrix in cases of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 IPC.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Present revision petition has been preferred to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 30.11.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No. 34/2014 by which conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide orders dated 10.09.2014 and 22.09.2014 were upheld. The petitioner was awarded SI for one year with fine Rs. 500/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC in case FIR No.533/2009 registered at PS Pandav Nagar.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 20.10.2009 at around 11.30 a.m. the petitioner outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix / complainant ‘X’ (changed name) when she visited Dr.Gulab Gupta’s clinic at C-4/19, Main Patparganj, Acharya Niketan, Delhi. After recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court. The prosecution examined six witnesses to establish its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He examined DW-2 (Jitender Pal) besides appearing himself as DW-1 in defence. The Trial Court recorded conviction; appeal against conviction resulted in its dismissal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that the petitioner was working as a ‘compounder’ with PW-4 (Dr.Gulab Gupta) at his clinic at Mayur Vihar, infront of Sitla Mandir, Chilla Road, Acharya Niketan, Delhi on the day of incident i.e. 20.10.2009. The victim had visited the said clinic that day. It is also admitted that PW-4 (Dr.Gulab Gupta) was not available in the clinic that time.

4. Conviction recorded by the Courts below is solely based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix ‘X’. Needless to say, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. In case the court has reasons not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration.

5. On scrutinising the statements of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses, it transpires that material discrepancies have been emerged which make it unsafe to base conviction without independent corroboration. The prosecutrix has made vital improvements in her Court statement. The occurrence took place on 20.10.2009 at around 11.30 a.m. The victim, however, lodged the FIR after a considerable delay and a rukka (Ex.PW-1/B) was sent at around 04.00 p.m. after recording her statement (Ex.PW-2/A). The delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. In the complaint (Ex.PW-2/A), the complainant disclosed that on 20.10.2009 at the time of her visit to the clinic, Dr.Gulab Gupta was not available. On enquiry from the compounder i.e. the petitioner, she came to know that he would arrive soon. She further disclosed that the accused enquired about her ailment. On being revealed that she was feeling weakness, the accused took her inside the clinic to check her BP. Inside the room, the accused on the pretext of checking her BP outraged her modesty. On her raising objection, he told that it was quite normal and ‘misbehaved’ with her. She went to her residence and narrated the entire episode to her husband. Thereafter, both of them came to the Police Station and lodged the FIR.

6. Improving her version, the prosecutrix in her court statement as PW-2 deposed that when she visited the clinic, Dr. Gulab Gupta was not available. On the petitioner’s asking about her problem and she telling him regarding feeling weakness, the accused called her inside and started to check her BP. Thereafter, he asked her to lie on the table; put his hand under her shirt and salwar. When she enquired as to what he was doing, he said it wa