Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1032 of 1998
PETITIONER:
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
RESPONDENT:
State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh) Thro’ Secy., & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/07/2005
BENCH:
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 430 OF 1999
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, I.A.S., .. Appellant
Vs.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill .. Respondent
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 1998 was found
guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the
Indian Penal Code. He challenges his conviction and sentence in this
appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1999 has been preferred by the
complainant in that case and she prays that the punishment imposed
on the accused should be enhanced. Both the appeals are heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
On 18.7.1988, a senior IAS officer, holding the post of Financial
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Punjab, invited
some of the IAS officers and IPS officer working at Chandigarh, for a
dinner at 8.30 P.M. at his residence in Sector 16 of Chandigarh.
Apart from the IAS and IPS officers, there were a few advocates,
including the Advocate General of the State of Punjab and also some
journalists and press correspondents working with some leading
newspapers. The guests assembled around 8.30 P.M. Ladies were
sitting in a semi-circle slightly away from the male guests. As per
the allegation in the complaint preferred by the husband of the
prosecutrix, the accused, who was then the Director General of Police
of the State of Punjab, came and occupied a chair which was lying
vacant at the place where the ladies were sitting. The accused then
called out the prosecutrix and asked her to sit near him as he
wanted to talk to her about something. When the prosecutrix was
about to sit on the chair lying near the accused, the latter suddenly
pulled the chair close to him and it is alleged that the prosecutrix felt
slightly embarrassed and she managed to pull the chair back and sat
on it. The accused again tried to pull the chair close to his chair
whereupon the prosecutrix got up from the chair and returned to her
original seat. The further allegation is that about ten minutes later,
the accused came near the prosecutrix and asked her to come along
with him. The prosecutrix strongly objected to his behaviour, but the
accused was not prepared to change his tone and tenor and again he
asked the prosecutrix to accompany him. The prosecutrix further
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
alleged that she became frightened as the accused blocked her way
and she tried to get away from the place whereupon the accused
slapped on the posterior of the prosecutrix and the same was done
in the presence of other guests. The prosecutrix then made a
complaint to the host and told him that the behaviour of the accused
was obnoxious and that he was not fit for a decent company. The
accused was then gently removed from the place. The prosecutrix
made a complaint to the Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau, who was
present there. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband
who was also present there. On the next day, that is 19th July,
1988, the prosecutrix sought an appointment with the Chief Secretary
and recounted the entire incident to him and requested him to take
suitable action against the accused. The prosecutrix met the Advisor
to the Governor of Punjab and gave a full and detailed account of the
incident that had happened at the dinner party. The prosecutrix
explained the incident to the then Secretary to the Governor and also
met the Governor. On 29th July, 1988, the petitioner gave a written
complaint to the police and a case was registered, but no further steps
were taken. After about four months, the husband of the prosecutrix
filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh,
alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 342,
352, 354, 355 and 509 IPC. Thereupon the accused preferred a
criminal revision under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the High Court
quashed the complaint as well as further proceedings pursuant to the
case registered by the police. The prosecutrix and her husband
jointly challenged the verdict of the High Court before this court and
the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the Chief Judicial
Magistrate was directed to take cognizance of the offence under
Sections 354 and 509 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate later framed
the charges and after a full-fledged trial the accused was found guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC. He was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and
pay a fine of Rs.500 for the offence under Section 354; and for the
offence under Section 509 IPC, punishment of simple imprisonment
for a period of two months and a fine of Rs. 200/- were imposed on
the accused. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the Sessions
Judge confirmed the conviction, but altered the sentence and the
accused was directed to be released on probation in lieu of custodial
sentence. The fine was enhanced to Rs.50,000 with a further
direction to pay half of it to the complainant. The accused challenged
the same in the revision before the High Court. The High Court did
not interfere with the conviction of the accused under Section 354 and
509. However, the fine was enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- and the entire
amount was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix. An amount of
Rs.25,000/- was directed to be paid as costs by the accused. The
judgment of the High Court is challenged by the accused as well as
the complainant.
The accused-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1032/98 raised
many contentions before us. The counsel for the appellant disputed
the correctness of the findings on various grounds, and even the
factual findings entered by the court were seriously disputed. It was
contended that no such incident had happened and this was a part of
a conspiracy to malign the appellant who had to take so many
serious actions to control the activities of the militants which were at
its peak during that time. It is alleged that the accused was able to
control the militant operations of the terrorists and got
commendations from the Government and other administrators and
this was not liked by many top-ranking bureaucrats and as part of the
conspiracy, the entire case was falsely foisted on him. It was also
submitted by the appellant’s counsel that the complaint itself was
filed after a period of three months and the witnesses who were
examined were all interested witnesses and most relevant witnesses
who were alleged to have witnessed the occurrence were not
examined. A pointed reference was also made to the non-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
examination of some of the witnesses cited by the prosecution.
It is true that there was some delay in filing the complaint
before the Magistrate, but that by itself was not sufficient to reject the
complaint put forward by the prosecutrix. It is important to note that
she recounted the entire incident immediately to the Chief
Secretary and other officers and raised objections and also sought for
stringent action against the accused. When she failed in all these
attempts, she and her husband filed the criminal complaint before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate. There is nothing to suggest that the
prosecutrix acted in connivance with some others and that she
hatched a conspiracy to malign the accused. If the whole incident is
viewed in correct perspective, it is clear that the behaviour of the
accused on the date of the incident was not consistent with the high
standard expected of a top-ranking police officer. The findings of the
various courts is to the effect that the accused gently slapped on the
posterior of the prosecutrix in the presence of some guests. This
act on the part of the accused would certainly constitute the
ingredient of Section 354 IPC. It is proved that the accused used
criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant
and that he knew fully well that gently slapping on the posterior of the
prosecutrix in the presence of other guests would embarrass her.
Knowledge can be attributed to the accused that he was fully aware
that touching the body of the prosecutrix at that place and time
would amount to outraging her modesty. Had it been without any
culpable intention on the part of the accused, nobody would have
taken notice of the incident. The prosecutrix made such a hue and
cry immediately after the incident and the reaction of the prosecutrix
is very much relevant to take note of the whole incident. The
accused being a police officer of the highest rank should have been
exceedingly careful and failure to do so and by touching the body of
the complainant with culpable intention he committed the offence
punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC. In view of the findings of
fact recorded by the two courts and affirmed by the High Court in
revision, the order of the High Court cannot be set aside on the mere
assertion by the accused that the whole incident was falsely foisted on
him with ulterior motives. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal
preferred by the accused. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
In the appeal preferred by the complainant, learned senior
counsel Ms. Indira Jaising contended that crimes against women are
on the rise and the court should have dealt with the matter severely
and the accused should not have been released on probation.
The incident happened in 1988. Despite the accused holding a
high position in the state police, the various courts found him guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC and that by
itself is setting a model for others and would enhance the faith in the
judicial system. The accused had completed the period of probation.
There was no occasion for any complaint or violation of any of the
terms of the bond. At this juncture, we do not think that it is just
and proper to resort to any other punishment. In our view, the
criminal appeal No. 430 of 1999 preferred by the complainant against
the judgment of the High Court is without any substance and the
same is dismissed accordingly.
The counsel for the appellant in this appeal submitted that the
complainant has no intention of withdrawing Rs.2 lacs ordered to be
paid to her by way of compensation and that the amount may be
given to any women’s organization engaged in doing service for the
cause of the women. The amount may be lying now in the court
deposit with the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. We leave the
matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to
deal with the said compensation amount in an appropriate manner as
prayed for by the complainant. A copy of this judgment shall be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
sent to the Registrar of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.