Shakotla Mishra vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi

$~P-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 05.05.2026
Pronounced on: 13.05.2026
Uploaded on: 13.05.2026


+ CRL.REV.P. 180/2026, CRL.M.A. 9218/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL)
622/2026

SHAKOTLA MISHRA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manish Yadav, Mr. Anurag
Kumar Singh, Mr. Shashank
Shekhar Chaurasia, Advocates.

Versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with ASI Raj
Kumar.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT

1. By way of this revision petition under Section 438 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 397
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) , the petitioner assails
his conviction and sentencing under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 [“IPC”], in proceedings arising from FIR No. 33/2018, dated
16.11.2018, registered at P.S. Metro Police Station Ghitorni. He was
convicted by a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court dated 31.01.2023, and
sentenced by order dated 05.02.2024, to imprisonment of six months and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 1 of 11

a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. By an order of the Appellate Court dated
11.03.2026, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
A. F ACTS
2. The complainant, who was then aged 18 years 11 months, alleged
that she was travelling on a metro train when another passenger pulled
down the zipper of his trousers and exposed himself to her. With the help
of other passengers, she tackled the culprit and brought the incident to the
notice of the metro staff. The person was identified as the petitioner
herein.
3. Upon filing of the chargesheet, charges were framed against the
petitioner under Sections 509 and 354A(1)(i) of the IPC on 29.01.2019.
The petitioner pleaded not guilty and stood trial. Five witnesses were
examined, including the complainant [PW-1].
4. The petitioner did not lead evidence, but made statements under
Section 313 CrPC. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow:
“ Without Oath.
Q.1 It is in evidence against you in the testimony of PW1 that on
16.11.2018, she was traveling in Metro Station from Delhi Cant
towards Huda City Centre at 5:30 pm. She was sitting on the metro
seat and you accused stood in front of her and unzipped your pant and
flashed your private part towards her. Then PW1 stood up and shouted
on you whereafter you hid your genitals with your bag. Few people
standing around PW1 helped her to inform the CISF and take you to
the staff of DMRC. In the staff room of DMRC, PW1 called at 100
number. Sub-inspector Ranbir Singh arrived at the metro station at
DMRC Control room. There she made complaint Ex.PW1/A. You were
arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was
recorded by the Magistrate which is Ex.PW1/C. The witness has
identified you during his testimony in the court. What do you have to
say?
A. It is wrong. On the fateful day, I was sitting in the Delhi Metro on a
seal which was reserved for senior citizens and the complainant asked
me to get up from the seat by pointing towards a/senior citizen who
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 2 of 11

was standing nearby. I had looked at the person she had pointed to and
felt that-he was not uncomfortable and who had not asked me to vacate
seat for him, therefore, kept on sitting because on that day, I was upset
regarding a business transaction which went bad. I was mentally
disturbed on that day, therefore, I kept sitting. However, she made me
get up and herself sat on the seat and started making nasty comments
about me saying that "bihari hai bihari hai". Thereafter, on hearing
her nasty comments I also comments back upon her and said "tum
bewakoof ho" whereafter a verbal altercation ensued between us and
she created a ruckus and created a false story against me…… ”

5. By the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023, the Trial Court
acquitted the petitioner under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, but convicted him
under Section 509 IPC. As far as Section 354A(1)(i) IPC is concerned,
the Court found the ingredient of physical contact between the
complainant and the accused to be absent, and therefore, acquitted him.
However, as far as Section 509 IPC is concerned, the Trial Court found
against the accused, recording the following findings:
A. The complainant’s version was consistent with regard to the facts
of the incident in her initial complaint, statement under Section 164
CrPC and testimony before the Court.
B. The complainant had correctly identified the accused in Court, who
was not a person known to her.
C. The act of a man exposing his private parts to a woman would
outrage the modesty of the woman.
D. The intention of the accused was established by the consistent
testimony of the complainant with regard to his unzipping of his
trousers and exposing his private part to a woman.
E. There was no material contradiction in the case of the complainant
with regard to commission of the offence. The contradictions, even
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 3 of 11

if established, were minor and related to ancillary facts, such as
conduct of the accused after commission of the offence, and
circumstances relating to the complainant’s travel on the date of
the incident. The contradictions, if any, had also been appropriately
explained.
The Court found the evidence sufficient to convict the petitioner,
although the prosecution had not brought any independent witness, nor
placed CCTV footage before the Court.
6. As noted above, by order dated 05.02.2024, the petitioner was
sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

7. In the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 11.03.2026, the
Appellate Court has affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court, and held
as follows:
A. The Trial Court’s reliance upon the testimony of the complainant,
which remained consistent and also withstood extensive cross-
examination, was upheld.
B. The defence taken by the petitioner in his statement under Section
313 CrPC, was disbelieved.
C. The Appellate Court found that PW-5 [Karan Singh Meena], who
was working as Controller, DMRP, had supported the
complainant’s statements, and had also withstood cross-
examination.
D. The Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the Trial Court that
the action of a male individual unzipping his trousers and exposing
his private part towards a woman would shock her modesty.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 4 of 11

E. The contention of the petitioner with regard to absence of public
witnesses was rejected by the Appellate Court, relying upon the
1
judgment of the Supreme Court in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat , to
the effect that public witnesses are often reluctant to give evidence.
F. The Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court to disregard
minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in the evidence, which did
not affect the substratum of the case against the petitioner.
G. The Appellate Court found that the sentence of six months’
imprisonment was already “ very lenient ”, as against a maximum
sentence of imprisonment of three years under Section 509 IPC.
UBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
B. S
8. Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, submitted
that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had taken an incorrect
view on the evidence. According to him, the findings were erroneous in
light of the absence of independent witnesses and CCTV footage, and the
fact that essential ingredient of intention to insult the modesty of a
woman was missing. He submitted, particularly, that the evidence of PW-
5 [Karan Singh Meena] had been misread by the Appellate Court.
9. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the
revision petition and supported the concurrent findings of the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court. He submitted that the present case does not
warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction, as there is no material
irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments.



1
1988 Supp SCC 241 [hereinafter, “ Appabhai ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 5 of 11

C. A NALYSIS
10. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner seeks revision of
concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and Sessions Court. Before
turning to the merits of the matter, it is relevant to examine the scope of
the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 438 of the
BNSS [corresponding to Section 397 of the CrPC].
11. The Supreme Court, in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath
2
Jathavedan Namboodiri , was dealing with a challenge to a judgment of
the Kerala High Court, in which the High Court interfered with
concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Sessions Court. The Supreme
Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding as
follows:
…In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine
“
the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In
other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised
by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said
revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate
court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to
reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same
when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as
well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is
brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise
3
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice……
”

4

12. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. , the Supreme Court
discussed the ambit and scope of revisional power, which the Courts,

2
(!999) 2 SCC 452.
3
Emphasis supplied.
4
(2012) 9 SCC 460.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 6 of 11

including High Court, can exercise under Section 397 of CrPC. The
Supreme Court held as follows:
“ 12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for
and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or
order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded
error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders,
which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and
appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous,
there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is
based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion
is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes,
but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its
own merits.
xxx xxx xxx
18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in
such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional
jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when
factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of
cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to
be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the
court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a
sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
xxx xxx xxx
20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as
to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by
the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the
section does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the
jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality,
propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very
foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it
also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised
where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of
law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion
is exercised arbitrarily… ….. ”

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 7 of 11

13. The scope of interference in a revision petition is thus limited.
Section 397 CrPC empowers the Courts to examine the correctness,
legality, or propriety of any finding or order. However, while exercising
such jurisdiction, the revisional Court does not ordinarily re-appreciate
evidence. The Court is confined to assessing whether the findings,
sentence, or order suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or material
irregularity, and has to refrain from substituting its own conclusions
based on evaluation of the evidence.
14. It is in this context that the arguments in the present case, with
regard to the sufficiency and probative value of evidence, must be
analyzed.
15. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 509 IPC, and
sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment, alongwith a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, which has been upheld by the Appellate Court. Section 509
IPC reads as follows:
“ Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word,
makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such
word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen,
by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, and also with fine. ”

16. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
have concurrently held in favour of the prosecution, on the basis of the
prosecutrix’s testimony. In cases of this nature, it is well settled that the
sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be credible, is sufficient to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 8 of 11

5
sustain a conviction . The prosecutrix’s version has remained consistent
across her initial complaint, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and
her deposition before the Court. The said testimony has also withstood
cross-examination and there is no material irregularity in reliance
thereupon by both Courts below. Furthermore, the testimony of the
prosecutrix finds corroboration in the deposition of PW-5 [Karan Singh
Meena], who was serving as Controller, DMRP at the relevant time. His
testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination, thereby lending
additional credibility to the prosecution case.

17. Mr. Yadav contended that there was a contradiction in the
testimony of PW-5 [Karan Singh Meena] to the extent that, in
examination-in-chief, he stated that the complainant came to control room
with other persons, but in cross-examination, he stated that he was
informed only by complainant and he does not know if other persons
were her friends or not. This does not appear to me to be material in any
respect. The fact that the complainant came to the control room with
other persons, is not inconsistent with her being the only informant or
witness to the incident.
18. Upon a perusal of Section 509 IPC, it is evident that intention is an
essential ingredient for constituting an offence under the said provision.
The intention, in my view, stands clearly established from the nature of
the act attributed to the petitioner. The act of a male unzipping his
trousers and exposing his private parts in front of a woman in a public
space is, by its very nature, an act intended to insult her modesty. It is not
the petitioner’s case that his trousers were left unzipped by forgetfulness

5
Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, paragraph 10.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 9 of 11

or mistake. The defence taken by the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC,
that the incident arose out of a verbal altercation regarding a metro seat,
has been disbelieved by both Courts below. The concurrent findings of
the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court do not suffer from
any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference
within the narrow confines of revisional jurisdiction.
19. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding absence
of independent public witnesses and non-production of CCTV footage
does not merit acceptance. The Trial Court has itself noted the absence of
such evidence, yet proceeded to evaluate the core testimony on record.
The Appellate Court has correctly applied the principle laid down by the
Supreme Court in Appabhai , recognizing that public witnesses are often
reluctant to come forward. The same has been reiterated by the Supreme
6
Court in Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) , and State of H.P. v.
7
Pardeep Kumar . The absence of such corroborative evidence, therefore,
does not dilute the prosecution case, when the primary witness is reliable.
20. On the aspect of sentence as well, no ground for interference is
made out. The petitioner has been awarded a sentence of six months’
simple imprisonment alongwith fine, whereas the maximum punishment
prescribed under Section 509 IPC extends to three years. Both Courts
have considered the nature of the offence and imposed a sentence that is
proportionate. In fact, it has been observed by the Appellate Court that
the sentence is rather lenient.


6
(2024) 12 SCC 494, paragraphs 122-123.
7
(2018) 13 SCC 808, paragraph 5.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 10 of 11

D. C ONCLUSION
21. In view of the above, there is no ground for interference in the
revisional jurisdiction of the Court.
22. The revision petition therefore stands dismissed.


PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 13, 2026
SS/AD
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:55
CRL.REV.P. 180/2026 Page 11 of 11