JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No.50/2013 registered under Section 354A IPC at P.S. GK-I. The petitioner was sentenced to SI for 6 months for the offence under Section 354A IPC along with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the petitioner was further directed to undergo SI for two days.

2. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04 & Special Judge South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

3. Briefly, the facts as noted by the trial court are reproduced as under:

"...on 17.04.2013 inside school Kotilya Sarkari Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Chirag Enclave, inside the examination hall, between 2.30 pm to 5.30 pm, the accused made unwelcome physical contact involving explicit sexual overtures against the minor victim Ms. X. Further, the accused met the victim nearby bus stand and uttered certain words towards her intending to insult her modesty and intrude upon her privacy.

2. As per the complaint of the complainant, on 17.04.2013 she had her examination of History subject at Kotilya Sarkari Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Chirag Enclave. The examination commenced at about 2.30 pm. There were two invigilators one of whom was of about 45 years of age with a strong built (accused). The other was about 30 years of age and was of thin built. The accused came to her and said that the time was about to get over and asked her to tie the map. When she started tying the map, he said that the method of tying the map is not correct and himself started tying the map. He sat beside the victim on the desk, on her left side and touched her breast with his right elbow intentionally. He told her that he could get her clear the examination. When she started moving away, he held her hand. She let her hand free from him. Then he gave his number 8826541465 to the victim and asked her to call him later. At the time of the incident, the other invigilator was far away. She was sitting on the last bench of the last row. In the end, the accused collected her copy and asked her to call him if she desired. Thereafter she came out of the class and reached the bus stand of Pampose Enclave. After sometime, the accused reached there also and started talking about the examination. He offered her lift to Khanpur but she declined. She said that her sister was waiting for her at Khanpur red light and that she would go by herself. The accused then forced her to go along with him and got an auto stopped. She declined and boarded a bus and reached Khanpur. The victim again saw the accused at Khan Pur BRT bus stop but by the time she met her sister, accused left. She told the entire incident to her sister and then to her father who called the PCR. Police reached there and recorded the statement of victim."

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined total of 3 witnesses. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution were the complainant (PW-1) and Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, the Principal of K.G.S.B. Vidhalaya Chirag Enclave, New Delhi (PW-2). SI Manisha, the Investigating Officer was examined as PW-3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case relate to an alleged incident dated 17.04.2013 which occurred when the complainant was writing her exam. He has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that it was passed on the premise that the complainant was a "minor". He pointed out various paragraphs in the impugned judgment where it was repeatedly mentioned that the complainant was a "minor victim". He submitted that the complainant was in fact, a "major" being 20 years of age on the date of the incident. He also pointed out the testimony of the complainant where it was stated that at the relevant point of time, she was working in an office at Bhikaji Cama Place.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alth