Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.Prabhakaran
For the Respondents: S.Vinoth Kumar

In sexual harassment cases, a delayed complaint is not inherently suspicious, as victims may experience initial shock and trauma, and evidence must be evaluated from the victim's perspective, without requiring them to act according to a rigid standard of normal conduct.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 354-A - Sexual harassment - Delay in lodging complaint - Credibility of victim testimony - Conduct of victim in sexual offences - Court observed that a victim of sexual misconduct may not immediately disclose the incident due to trauma, and subsequent reporting to co-workers and authorities rather than immediate police action does not render the narrative doubtful, especially when the victim's testimony is corroborated by other witnesses and evidence.

(B) Criminal Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction - Concurrent findings - Revisional power - Assessment of evidence - The court affirmed the conviction based on concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that appellate courts should not interfere unless the assessment of evidence is perverse, provided the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimony. (Paras 26, 29-30)

Facts of the case:
The victim, employed as a Steno Typist, alleged that the accused committed sexual harassment by kissing her and touching her inappropriately while she was on duty. The incident was not reported immediately due to shock and trauma but was disclosed to a superior officer. A complaint was filed later. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed said conviction. The accused approached the High Court in revision, citing delays in lodging the FIR and contradictions in testimonies.

Findings of Court:
The court sustained the conviction, noting that the presence of the accused at the scene was evidenced by a witness and remained uncontroverted. The delay in reporting was interpreted as a natural psychological response to trauma rather than a fabrication. However, given the length of the proceedings and the accused's time served, the court opted to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

Issues: Whether the delay in lodging the complaint and alleged contradictions in testimony warrant the acquittal of the accused, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the presence of the accused at the scene of the offense.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of sexual harassment, victims are not expected to act according to a rigid script; natural responses involving trauma and initial hesitation are not indicators of falsehood. Where the evidence of the victim is consistent and corroborated by other witnesses, minor inconsistencies or delays do not undermine the prosecution's case.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed; conviction confirmed, sentence modified to time served.

Table of Content
1. overview of the alleged offence and the initial report of the incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. trial and appellate procedures regarding the prosecution's evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. defense arguments regarding procedural delays and lack of corroboration. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. respondent arguments emphasizing the nature of sexual harassment victimization. (Para 18 , 19)
5. court justification for accepting victim testimony and concurrent findings despite delays. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. discretionary reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances and time served. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

O R D E R

1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Dharmapuri, dated 09.01.2023, in C.C.No.55 of 2017, and confirmed by the judgment dated 05.03.2024, in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. By the said judgment dated 09.01.2023, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 354(A) of IPC and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In case of default in paying the fine, he is to undergo an additional week of simple imprisonment.

2. On 28.02.2017, when P.W.8 was serving as Inspector of Police at the All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, she took up the complaint lodged by P.W.1 (the victim) and registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2017 under Section 354(A) of the IPC. In the said complaint, P.W.1 alleged that she was employed as a Steno Typist in the office of the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Welfare Department, Kuppur, Dharmapuri. On 11.02.2017 (Saturday), she was on her turn duty. That day, Kumar and Rajamani also had their turn duty. She was performing her duties normally. At that time, the accused, Sivakumar, who was working as an Assistant, was also present in the office. While checking emails, she noticed the regularisation orders of the Office Superintendents, which were sent via email, and was printing them out. At about 11.30 a.m., the accused approached her and asked about the printouts she was making. She replied that the regularisation orders had arrived and she was keeping them on her table. The accused then came to her table and began reading the printed copies.

3. While she was there, he suddenly placed both his hands on her cheeks and kissed her on the left cheek. She tried to wriggle free, but he continued to molest her by touching her breasts, causing her significant trauma. Soon afterward, another employee, Marimuthu, came with a milk packet and asked her to prepare tea. At that time, she was unable to tell him what had happened to her. She was in severe mental distress.

4. Even on the next working day, i.e., on 13.02.2017, she was crying in the office, and at that time, her Office Superintendent (P.W.3) asked her the reason. She disclosed the reason to her, and then it was reported to the Joint Director. The Joint Director inquired about the incident and promised her that he would take action against the accused. However, even after 10 days, no action was taken against the accused. She was subjected to severe mental harassment and was unable to be normal at her home or at the office; therefore, she lodged a complaint on 23.02.2011.

5. Based on the complaint, a case was registered, and P.W.8 completed the investigation and submitted a final report proposing the accused guilty of the offences under Section 354(A) of IPC. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.55 of 2017. After summons were issued, copies furnished, and a grant of opportunity, a charge was framed for the offence under Section 354(A) of the IPC. Upon being questioned, the accused denied the charge and stood trial. To establish the case, the victim was examined as P.W.1. In her testimony, P.W.1 described the incident that occurred on 11.02.2017, stating that she could not immediately reveal it to a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASD. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JSivakumar – AppellantVersusState – RespondentCrl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

In sexual harassment cases, a delayed complaint is not inherently suspicious, as victims may experience initial shock and trauma, and evidence must be evaluated from the victim's perspective, without requiring them to act according to a rigid standard of normal conduct.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024