IMPORTANT POINT
Convictions for sexual harassment require corroborative evidence beyond mere allegations to meet the legal standards set by IPC.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:

(1) The judgment and order dated 29.11.2018, passed in Criminal Case No. 605 of 2018, State vs. Kunali Giri, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 354, 354A, 504, 506 IPC and sentenced as follows:

(i) Under Section 354 IPC-to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(ii) Under Section 354A IPC- to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(iii) Under Section 504 IPC- to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(iv) Under Section 506 IPC- to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(2) The judgment and order dated 30.08.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2018, Kunal Giri vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order passed in the case was partly allowed and the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, but he has been convicted under Section 354A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine remaining unaltered.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The factual narrations, briefly stated, are as follows. On 01.11.2014, PW1 lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar. According to it, for seeking peace, the PW1, the victim reached at Haridwar on 21.10.2014. She stayed in a hotel. At about 04:30, on the same evening, the revisionist, who is the owner of the hotel introduced himself to PW1, the victim and told that he is a widower. He sought sexual favour from PW1, the victim assuring to make the victim his business partner or life partner. PW1, the victim, declined for it and also warned the revisionist to mend his ways. But, the FIR records that thereafter, on various occasions, the revisionist would visit the room of the victim and would molest her and sought sexual favour from her. On 30.10.2014, the revisionist abused and threatened PW1 the victim to life. Thereafter, the victim left the hotel and stayed in hotel Janvi. The FIR is quite in detail. It is this FIR, in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist under 354, 354A, 504, 506 IPC, which is the basis of the case. On 16.11.2016, charges under Sections 354, 354A, 504, 506 IPC were framed against the revisionist to which he declined and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 the victim, PW2 Chirag Kukhreja, PW3 Rohit Shukla, PW4 Meem Chandra Sharma, PW5 Kiran Rawat, PW6 Sub Inspector, Mahanand, the first Investigating Officer, PW7 SI Dilbar Singh Bhandari, the Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet.

5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, there was a dispute with regard to the rent of the room. Therefore, he was falsely implicated.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2018, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as mentioned hereinbefore, which was challenged in the appeal, wherein, the conviction was upheld under Section 354A IPC and sentence was reduced, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would su