Credible victim testimony can sustain a Section 509 conviction despite investigation lapses and absent independent witnesses.

On 11 March 2014, the complainant and her husband alleged that the petitioner intercepted them near their residence, made vulgar remarks about their childless marriage, unzipped his pants, and said, “Mere ko ek chance do, tumko pregnant kardenge”

The complainant lodged a written complaint the following day; the petitioner was charged under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

The Trial Court acquitted him under Section 506 but convicted him under Section 509 and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine. The Sessions Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence

The petitioner challenged those concurrent findings in revision, citing contradictions in the witnesses’ accounts, non-examination of independent witnesses, investigation lapses, and absence of motive

1. Whether the petitioner’s alleged words and gesture were made with the intent to insult the complainant’s modesty, constituting an offence under Section 509 IPC

2. Whether the evidence of the complainant and her husband remained reliable despite alleged discrepancies and the absence of independent witnesses

3. Whether the non-examination of cited witnesses and other investigation lapses were fatal to the prosecution case

4. Whether the absence of a prior motive or animosity rendered the prosecution case doubtful

5. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction disclosed perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence warranting revisional interference

The Court applied Section 509 IPC, which penalises words, gestures, or acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty

It relied on Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, which recognises that words or gestures capable of shocking a woman’s sense of decency may constitute an affront to modesty, and State of Punjab v. Major Singh, concerning conduct suggestive of sex in a woman’s presence

The Court also applied the principle that credible testimony of a victim of an offence against modesty does not require mechanical corroboration, and that deficiencies in investigation or the absence of independent witnesses do not by themselves defeat otherwise trustworthy ocular evidence

It stated that criminal intent may be inferred from the accused’s conduct and surrounding circumstances, and that proof of a separate prior motive is not essential where direct evidence establishes the act

In revision under Sections 401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, interference with concurrent findings is limited, including where findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no evidence

The Court accepted PW-1’s account of the petitioner’s sexual remark and gesture, finding that the conduct and its context established the intent required by Section 509 IPC

It treated PW-2’s presence as natural corroboration and considered the discrepancies raised by the defence collateral rather than destructive of the core account

It held that the investigation shortcomings and failure to examine other witnesses did not displace the complainant’s and her husband’s direct evidence

The Court further concluded that no independent proof of motive was necessary because intent could be inferred from the alleged conduct itself

Finding no perversity or other ground for revisional intervention in the lower courts’ assessment, it declined to disturb the concurrent conviction

It affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 509 IPC

It directed the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence, failing which coercive steps could be taken in accordance with law