Page 1

       REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2126 OF 2010

S.P.S. Rathore  .... Appellant(s)

Versus

C.B.I. & Anr.                              .... Respondent(s)

                      J U D G M E N T

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) This  appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  judgment  and

order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1558 of

2010  whereby  learned  single  Judge  of  the  High  Court

dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.   

2) Brief facts:

(a) SPS  Rathore-the  appellant-accused,  a  member  of  the

prestigious  service  of  the  country,  was  on  deputation  with

Bhakhra  Beas  Management  Board  (BBMB),  Chandigarh  as

Director (Vigilance & Security) at the relevant time.  He also

1

Page 2

founded the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (HLTA) in the

year 1988.   

(b) The office of HLTA was established in the garage of House

No. 469, Sector 6, Panchkula, an under construction building

owned by the appellant-accused which was divided into three

portions wherein front portion was being used as the office of

HLTA and the  other  two portions  were  being  utilized  by  T.

Thomas and Kuldeep Singh, Coach and Manager respectively

of  the  Association  for  residential  purposes.   HLTA  enrolled

several member players who were mostly nearby residents of

Panchkula on payment of monthly subscription.

(c) Ms.  Ruchika  (since  deceased),  daughter  of  Shri  S.C.

Girhotra and Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu, daughter of Shri Anand

Prakash  and  Madhu  Prakash  (the  complainant),  both  aged

about  15  years,  residents  of  Panchkula  got  themselves

enrolled as members of the HLTA.  Both of them were good

friends  and  used  to  go  together  for  practice  at  the  Tennis

court.   The appellant-accused was also a frequent visitor to

the said Tennis court.  One day, when Ms. Ruchika informed

the  appellant-accused  about  her  plan  to  go  abroad,  the

2

Page 3

appellant-accused  met  her  father-Shri  S.C.  Girhotra  on

11.08.1990  in  order  to  persuade  him  to  not  to  send  his

daughter  out  of  the  country  for  specialized  tennis  coaching

and promised that special coaching would be arranged for her

at HLTA itself and also asked him to send Ruchika to his office

on  the  very  next  day  in  connection  with  the  same.  Shri

Girhotra  informed  the  same  to  his  daughter-Ruchika  and

asked  her  to  meet  the  appellant-accused  in  his  office  on

12.08.1990.

(d) On 12.08.1990,  Ms.  Ruchika  visited  the  house  of  Ms.

Aradhana and told her about the visit of the appellant-accused

to her house and also that  he had called her  in his  office.

When  both  of  them  were  practicing  in  the  tennis  court,

Paltoo-the  ball  picker,  informed  Ms.  Ruchika  that  the

appellant-accused had called her in his office.   Accordingly,

Ms.  Ruchika  along  with  Ms.  Aradhana  went  to  meet  the

appellant-accused who was standing outside the office at that

particular point of time.  The appellant-accused insisted them

to come inside the office. On his insistence, both the girls went

inside the office.  The appellant-accused got fetched one chair

3

Page 4

which was occupied by Ms. Aradhana and Ms. Ruchika kept

standing  on  the  right  side  of  Ms.  Aradhana  while  the

appellant-accused sat in his chair which was on the other side

of the table. The appellant-accused requested Ms. Aradhana to

call  for  Mr. Thomas-the Coach.  Accordingly,  Ms.  Aradhana

went  outside  leaving behind the  appellant-accused and Ms.

Ruchika in the office.  Ms. Aradhana asked the person who

fetched the chair for her in the office to inform the Coach to

come  to  the  office  of  the  appellant-accused.  However,  the

Coach refused to come.  

(e) Immediately thereafter, when Ms. Aradhana returned to

the office, she witnessed that Ms. Ruchika was in the grip of

the appellant-accused, who was holding one hand of Ruchika

in his hand and his other hand was around her waist.  The

appellant-accused was pulling her towards his chest so as to

embrace her and Ruchika was trying to push him back with

her free hand.       

(f) On seeing Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the appellant-accused

got frightened and released Ms. Ruchika and fell on his chair.

The appellant-accused asked Ms. Aradhana to go out of his

4

Page 5

room again and personally bring the coach with her.    The

appellant-accused insisted Ruchika to stay in his room, but

she somehow managed to escape.  When Aradhana was about

to go behind Ruchika, the appellant-accused told her “Ask her

to cool down, I will do whatever she will say”.  After listening to

this, Ms. Aradhana also ran behind Ms. Ruchika to enquire

about  the  matter.   Thereafter,  Ruchika  narrated  the  whole

incident to her.  After discussion, both the girls decided not to

inform the  same to  their  parents  as  the  appellant-accused,

being  IG of  Police,  could  involve  or  harass  them and  their

parents.        

(g) On 14.08.1990, Ms. Ruchika along with Ms. Aradhana

went to the lawn tennis court at about 4:30 p.m., instead of

their  usual  timing,  in order  to avoid the appellant-accused,

who used to visit the court in the evening.  When both the girls

were about to return, at about 6:30 p.m., Mr. Paltoo-the ball

picker, came out of the court and told Ms. Ruchika that the

appellant-accused had called her in his office.  However, Ms.

Ruchika refused to meet him and pointed out to Ms. Aradhana

that  since  they  had  not  informed  their  parents  about  the

5

Page 6

mis-behaviour  of  the  appellant-accused  on  12.08.1990,  the

appellant-accused  was  feeling  emboldened  and  had  again

called her to his office with a view to molest her.  Thereafter,

both of them decided to disclose the incident that took place

on  12.08.1990  to  their  respective  parents.   Accordingly,

Ruchika narrated the incident of her molestation at the hands

of  the  appellant-accused to  her  father,  Shri  S.  C.  Girhotra.

Also,  the parents of  Ms.  Aradhana were made aware of  the

entire incident.   

(h) On  hearing  this,  Shri  S.C.  Girhotra,  gathered  the

residents of the locality, who were mostly parents of trainee

boys and girls, and they went to the HLTA office to meet the

appellant-accused  but  they  were  informed  that  the

appellant-accused  had  already  left  for  Chandigarh.   On

15.08.1990,  a  Memorandum/petition,  duly  signed  by  Ms.

Ruchika, Ms. Aradhana, Mr. Anand Prakash and Ms. Madhu

Prakash-father and mother of Ms. Aradhana, was presented to

the then Secretary (Home), Haryana.  After the approval of the

Home Minister, Shri R.R. Singh, the then DGP was directed to

6

Page 7

hold  an  inquiry  into  the  allegations  leveled  against  the

appellant-accused in the Memorandum/petition.    

(i) After conducting the enquiry into the incident, Shri R.R.

Singh concluded that the allegation of molestation is based on

true  facts  and  a  cognizable  case  is  made  out  against  the

appellant-accused  under  the  provisions  of  the  Indian  Penal

Code,  1860  (in  short  ‘the  IPC’)  and  forwarded  his  enquiry

report dated 03.09.1990 to the Secretary (Home), Government

of Haryana.   

(j) During investigation it  was also revealed that after the

incident of molestation, Ms. Ruchika confined herself in her

house.   Later,  on  28.12.1993,  she  committed  suicide  by

consuming poison and died on 29.12.1993.   

(k) The enquiry report by Shri R.R. Singh was examined by

the Legal Division of the Government of Haryana in 1990 and

1992  which  also  recommended  for  registration  of  a  case

against  the  appellant-accused.   Madhu  Prakash-the

complainant/Respondent  No.  2  herein  requested  several

authorities in the Government of Haryana for registration of a

case but no action was taken on which she filed a Criminal

7

Page 8

Writ Petition being No. 1694 of 1997 before the Punjab and

Haryana  High  Court.   The  High  Court,  vide  order  dated

21.08.1998, issued direction to the Superintendent of Police,

Panchkula that after registration of the case, the investigation

shall  be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI) and the same shall be conducted by an officer not below

the rank of DIG.  This Court, by its order dated 14.12.1999,

upheld the order of the High Court dated 21.08.1998 which

culminated into registration of a First Information Report (FIR)

being No. 516 of 1999 under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC

at PS Panchkula, Haryana against the appellant-accused.        

(l) The CBI filed charge-sheet dated 16.11.2000 before the

Court  of  Special  Judicial  Magistrate,  CBI,  Ambala  under

Section 354 of the IPC.  A petition under Section 473 of the

Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973 (in short  ‘the Code’)  was

filed by the CBI for condoning the delay in filing the charge

sheet  and  for  taking  cognizance  which  was  allowed  by  the

Court  of  Special  Judicial  Magistrate,  by  his  order  dated

05.12.2000.  Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2000,

the appellant-accused preferred Writ Petition (Criminal) being

8

Page 9

No.  46381  of  2000  before  the  High  Court  challenging  the

condonation  of  delay.   The  High  Court,  by  its  order  dated

18.04.2001 dismissed the petition with a direction to the trial

court to dispose of the case preferably within six months.      

(m) Further, a petition was filed for addition of Section 306

IPC in the charge sheet which was allowed by an order of the

Trial Court dated 23.10.2001.  Being aggrieved by the order

dated  23.10.2001,  the  appellant-accused  preferred  Criminal

Misc. Petition being No. 44607-M/2011 before the High Court.

The High Court, by its order dated 12.02.2002, set aside the

order dated 23.10.2001 passed by the Trial Court.  In appeal,

this Court also upheld the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by

the High Court.

(n) The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, by

its  judgment  and  order  dated  21.12.2009  in  Challan  No.

3/17-11-2000,  12  T/10.04.2006  RBT191/17-11-2009,  held

the appellant-accused guilty of offence under Section 354 of

the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment

(RI) for six months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.  Being

aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2009, the

9

Page 10

appellant-accused  preferred  Criminal  Appeal  being  No.  5  of

12.01.2010  before  the  Court  of  Additional  Sessions  Judge,

Chandigarh.  The CBI and Madhu Prakash-Respondent No. 2

herein  also  preferred  Criminal  Appeal  being  Nos.  26  of

12.01.2010  and  22  of  05.02.2010  respectively,  before  the

Court  for  enhancement  of  sentence.   Learned  Additional

Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by his order dated 25.05.2010

dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant-accused  while

allowing the appeals filed by the CBI and Madhu Prakash for

inadequacy of the sentence and for enhancement of sentence

of imprisonment and the appellant-accused was awarded with

rigorous  imprisonment  for  1  ½  years  (one  and  a  half)  for

committing  offence  under  Section  354  of  the  IPC.   The

sentence of fine remained unchanged.    

(o) Being  aggrieved  of  the  judgment  and  order  dated

25.05.2010, the appellant-accused preferred Criminal Revision

being  No.  1558  of  2010  before  the  High  Court.   The  High

Court, by its order dated 01.09.2010, dismissed the revision

filed by the appellant-accused.   

10

Page 11

(p) Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant-accused

has preferred this petition by way of special leave before this

Court.  This Court, by its order dated 11.11.2010, has allowed

the petition filed by the appellant-accused for bail.

3) Heard Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for

the appellant-accused and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned

senior  counsel  for  the  CBI  and  Shri  Vikas  Mehta,  learned

counsel for Respondent No. 2.

Rival contentions:

4) Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant-accused

contended  that  given the  situation  of  the  HLTA make  shift

office in a garage at the relevant point of time along with the

presence of a number of people including labourers, it would

be impossible to even try for such an act, knowing well that

the act can be seen by others.  Learned senior counsel further

contended that the prosecution story is absolutely false and

frivolous and the appellant-accused has been framed in the

present  case  by  the  complainant  party  and  the  high  level

officers  of  the  State  with  an  ulterior  motive.   The

appellant-accused  neither  visited  the  house  of  Shri  S.C.

11

Page 12

Girhotra nor asked for a meeting with Ruchika on 12.08.1990

in  HLTA  office.   It  was  further  argued  that  the

Memorandum/petition  has  been  drafted  after  prolonged

consideration and deliberation by several  interested persons

including some senior police officers of the State of Haryana.

The name of the players who were allegedly accompanying Ms.

Ruchika at the relevant time has not been mentioned in the

Memorandum intentionally  and  later  on  Ms.  Aradhana  has

been planted as  ‘Sathi  Khiladi’.   It  was contended that  the

words  ‘Sathi  Khiladi’  have  been  mentioned  in  the

Memorandum for the purpose of introducing an eye witness of

choice.   Learned senior  counsel  further  contended that  the

signature of Ms. Ruchika on the alleged Memorandum is false

and forged and on this ground, the document cannot be relied

upon.   This  document  does  not  disclose  the  details  of  the

incident  and  merely  suggests  that  the  appellant-accused

misbehaved with Ms. Ruchika which does not attract Section

354 of the IPC.    

5) Learned  senior  counsel  further  contended  that  no

complaint was filed by Ms. Ruchika or her father Shri  S.C.

12

Page 13

Girhotra or Shri Ashu - elder brother of Ms. Ruchika or Mrs.

Madhu Prakash (PW-2) or  Sh. Anand Prakash (PW-1) or  by

Ms.  Aradhana  (PW-13)  in  the  police  station.   Even  after

14.08.1990, when Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana allegedly

informed their parents, none of them approached the police to

get the FIR registered.  The police post, Sector 6, Panchkula is

at a distance of 300 yards only from the tennis court.  It is

situated very near to the house of Shri S.C. Girhotra also.  In

this  way  undue  and  unexplained  delay  resulted  in

manipulations  and  proper  version  could  not  be  put  forth

before the court.

6) Learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused further

contended that the inquiry conducted by Shri R.R. Singh was

without jurisdiction as the appellant-accused, at the relevant

point of time, was on deputation with the BBMB and was not

under  the  administrative  control  of  the  Government  of

Haryana.   He  further  contended  that  the  IAS  lobby  in  the

Government  of  Haryana  was  entirely  against  the

appellant-accused  and  it  had  colluded  with  Shri  Anand

Prakash (PW-1) and others against the appellant-accused.  He

13

Page 14

further pointed out the reason that there was rivalry between

the  two  tennis  associations,  one  headed  by  the

appellant-accused and one formed later on by the IAS group

with Shri J.K. Duggal, Secretary (Home) as its President with

the  patronage of  Shri  B.S.  Ojha.   It  was further  contended

from the side of the appellant-accused that before forming the

Haryana Tennis Association (HTA), the IAS lobby pressurized

the appellant-accused to step down from the Presidentship of

HLTA  in  favour  of  Shri  B.S.  Ojha  to  which  the

appellant-accused refused which annoyed Shri B.S. Ojha, who

had strong reasons for ordering the enquiry by Shri R.R. Singh

and  police  officers  working  under  him  had  organized  the

drafting  of  the  said  Memorandum  against  the

appellant-accused.  The enquiry conducted by Shri R.R. Singh

cannot be relied upon because no enquiry could be marked to

him and also he has not held the enquiry in proper manner. It

was  further  submitted  by  learned  senior  counsel  that  the

media  has  played  a  negative  role  in  the  present  case  and

published the selective news items only in collusion with the

complainant party.  The material witnesses like ball picker -

14

Page 15

Paltoo and Coach - K.T. Thomas, who were allegedly present at

the place of alleged incident, have not been examined by the

prosecution.   Further,  the  witnesses  have  made  a  lot  of

improvements and there are other discrepancies also in the

statements  of  witnesses  and  therefore,  the  same  could  not

have been relied upon by the courts below.  Learned senior

counsel finally contended that the case of the prosecution is

false  and  frivolous,  the  net  result  of  which  is  that  the

prosecution  has  failed  to  prove  its  case  and  the

appellant-accused is entitled to be acquitted.  

7) Per contra, learned senior counsel for the CBI submitted

that  the  occurrence  is  well  proved  by  the  unimpeachable

testimony of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13).  The eye witness stood

with her testimony till end and therefore, the contention urged

on behalf of the appellant-accused with regard to the above

evidence  has  no  relevance  or  substance.   On  a  careful

examination of the statement of PW-13, it can be very easy to

arrive at the conclusion that there was every possibility that

Ms.  Ruchika  could  have  been  embraced  by  the

appellant-accused  in  the  manner  that  the  eye-witness

15

Page 16

eventually described in her deposition before the trial court.

Even  Shri  S.C.  Girhotra  –  father  of  Ms.  Ruchika  has

categorically deposed that the appellant-accused met him and

requested  him  not  to  send  his  daughter  abroad  and  also

insisted to meet her in his office on 12.08.1990 which gets

corroboration from the statement of PW-13 that both the girls

went to meet the appellant-accused at his office at HLTA.

8) With  regard  to  the  claim  of  signature  on  the

Memorandum as well as on the application given to the SHO,

learned senior counsel for the CBI submitted that as far as the

signatures of  Ms.  Ruchika on the document  are concerned,

Ms.  Ruchika  has  signed  the  alleged  Memorandum  in  the

presence  of  others  and  the  same  is  established  by  the

witnesses like Ms. Aradhana,  Mrs.  Madhu Prakash and Sh.

Anand Prakash in whose presence she signed the documents,

which  is  a  direct  evidence.  The  evidence  of  expert  witness

cannot  be  considered conclusive  proof  of  the  charge  and it

requires  independent  and  reliable  evidence  for  its

corroboration.  She further  submitted that  Ms.  Ruchika was

the  best  person  to  depose  about  the  genuineness  of  her

16

Page 17

signatures, but as she is  no more, therefore,  she could not

appear in the witness box to depose about the genuineness of

her signature on the alleged Memorandum. In her absence,

the persons, in whose presence, she signed the document are

the best witnesses to prove the genuineness of the signature of

the  victim.  The  strong  direct  evidence  on  record  cannot  be

rebutted by weak type of evidence of hand writing expert upon

which  reliance  is  placed  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  on

behalf of the appellant-accused.  

9) With  regard  to  the  contention  urged  by  the

appellant-accused that Ms. Aradhana was the ‘Sathi Khiladi’

as mentioned in the Memorandum, on the basis of which FIR

got  registered,  was  manipulated,  learned  senior  counsel

submitted that a perusal of the contents of the Memorandum

reveals that it merely gives a sequence of events which had

happened  from  the  very  beginning  and  no  manipulation

appears to be made out. Merely on the ground that Shri C.P.

Bansal, the then DIG and Shri Sham Lal Goyal, the then DSP

were present on the spot, it cannot be said that they actively

participated  in  its  drafting  and  certain  unnecessary  and

17

Page 18

unwarranted  facts  were  added  to  it.  If  experienced  police

officers would have participated in its drafting then it should

have been in the form of FIR and the evidence must have been

specifically  pointed  out  in  it.  But  the  language  of  the

Memorandum is like that the people have tried to show their

resentment  against  the  alleged  act  and  demanded  action

against the accused. The reason for not mentioning the name

of Ms. Aradhana in the Memorandum is that she could have

been  harassed  by  the  accused,  who  being  a  high  ranking

police officer.  Because of this reason only, Ms. Ruchika or Ms.

Aradhana or their parents did not approach the local police to

lodge  the  FIR.   They  were  fully  aware  that  the

appellant-accused, being a senior most police officer, holding a

key  post  in  the  State,  would  definitely  hamper  the

investigation or may not allow the police officers to cooperate

with the complainant party.

10) Learned senior counsel for the CBI further pointed out

that  Shri  R.R.  Singh was an authority  legally  competent  to

investigate the facts of the Memorandum and he was asked by

the Government of Haryana to enquire into the facts given in

18

Page 19

the  Memorandum and to  submit  a report  to  it.  To make a

person an authority legally competent to investigate, it is not

necessary that he should be having authority which flows from

a  Statute.  It  is  sufficient  that  such  person  was  authorized

legally  by  the  State  Government  to  investigate  the  fact.  As

such, Sh. R.R. Singh was competent authority to investigate

the  facts  in  question  and  the  statements  given  by  the

witnesses before him are admissible in evidence irrespective of

time gap between the time when the incidents occurred and

the date on which the statements were given.  

11) Learned senior counsel for the CBI finally submitted that

the alleged rivalry between the HLTA and HTA as well as the

arguments  advanced  by  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellant-accused  regarding  the  credibility  of  Shri  Anand

Prakash  (PW-1)  and  Shri  S.C.  Girhotra  (PW-15)  have  no

bearing on the case at hand and the prosecution has made out

a case for conviction of the appellant-accused under Section

354 of the IPC.

19

Page 20

Discussion:

12) It is not disputed that HLTA was floated in 1988-89 at

Panchkula, Haryana. The appellant-accused was the President

of HLTA. Its office was established in the garage of an under

construction  house  at  Sector  6,  Panchkula  owned  by  the

appellant-accused.   It  is  also  an  admitted  fact  that  Ms.

Aradhana  (PW-13),  Mr.  Manish  Arora  (PW-3),  Mr.  Vipul

Chanana (PW-4) and Ms. Ruchika (since deceased) were the

members  of  the  Association  and  used  to  play  tennis  in  its

court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.08.1990, the

appellant-accused  visited  the  house  of  Shri  S.C.  Girhotra

(PW-15)  and  requested  him  not  to  send  his  daughter  to

Canada for coaching as he would arrange special coaching for

her at HLTA itself.  This fact has been well proved by Shri S.C.

Girhotra (PW-15) in his statement. He has deposed before the

trial Court that on 11.08.1990, the appellant-accused visited

his house at about 12.00 noon and had asked him not to send

his  daughter  to  Canada and that  he would arrange special

coaching for her.  The appellant-accused further asked him to

send his daughter on 12.08.1990, at about 12.00 noon, in his

20

Page 21

office to discuss about the training.  At that particular point of

time,  Ms.  Ruchika  was  not  present  at  her  house.  On  her

return, PW-15 informed the same to her and also asked her to

meet  the  appellant-accused  on  12.08.1990  in  his  office  at

12.00 noon.  This fact finds corroboration from the statement

of  Ms.  Aradhana  (PW-13).   She  has  deposed  that  on

12.08.1990, at  about 11.00 a.m., Ms.  Ruchika came to her

house and she very excitedly told her that on 11.08.1990, the

appellant-accused had visited  her  house  and requested her

father  not  to  send  her  abroad  and  that  he  would  arrange

special coaching for her at HLTA itself as she was a promising

player.  She  further  informed  Ms.  Aradhana  that  the

appellant-accused had asked her to meet him on 12.08.1990,

at 12.00 noon, at HLTA office. The very same fact finds place

in the Memorandum also which was signed by Ms. Ruchika

along with others.  The evidence of PW-15 corroborates with

the evidence of PW-13 in order to substantiate the fact that

the appellant-accused visited the house of Shri S.C. Girhotra

on  11.08.1990 and asked  him to  send Ms.  Ruchika  to  his

office on 12.08.1990, at 12.00 noon.  

21

Page 22

13) Ms. Ruchika (since deceased) and Ms. Aradhana went to

play at lawn tennis court on 12.08.1990 and while they were

playing  Sh.  Paltoo-the  ball  picker  came there  and told  Ms.

Ruchika that the appellant-accused had called her to his office

at 12.00 noon. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana

went to his office.  The appellant-accused asked Ms. Aradhana

to fetch the coach-Shri T. Thomas.  While Ms. Aradhana had

left  the  place,  the  appellant-accused  molested/outraged  the

modesty of Ms. Ruchika.  When Ms. Aradhana returned to the

office,  she  witnessed  the  appellant-accused  molesting  Ms.

Ruchika.  Ms.  Aradhana,  in her  statement,  has categorically

deposed that on that day when both of them i.e., Ms. Ruchika

and Ms. Aradhana were playing tennis, Shri Paltoo, the ball

picker,  came  and  informed  Ms.  Ruchika  that  the

appellant-accused  had  called  her  in  HLTA office.  They  saw

that  the  appellant-accused  was  standing  outside  his  office.

On seeing them, the appellant-accused asked them to come to

his  office.  Though  Ms.  Ruchika  requested  the

appellant-accused  to  talk  to  her  outside  the  office,  but  he

insisted them to come to his  office.  On his insistence,  they

22

Page 23

followed  him  towards  his  office.  On  being  asked  by  the

appellant-accused,  a  chair  was  brought  on  which  Ms.

Aradhana (PW-13) sat down while Ruchika remained standing

on  her  right  side.  Immediately  thereafter,  the

appellant-accused asked Ms. Aradhana to fetch the coach-Mr.

T.  Thomas.  When  she  went  outside  to  call  the  coach,  she

found him standing  at  a  distance  on the  other  side  of  the

house across the road. She asked the ball picker-Paltoo to go

and fetch the coach. Mr. Thomas, on being informed about the

same by Mr. Paltoo, waved his hand towards Ms. Aradhana

expressing his inability to come at that moment.  Thereafter,

Ms. Aradhana returned and when she entered the office, she

saw that the appellant-accused was holding one hand of Ms.

Ruchika  and  his  other  hand  was  around  her  waist.   Ms.

Ruchika was trying hard to get herself  released by pushing

him  away  with  her  other  hand.   On  seeing  Ms.  Aradhana

(PW-13), the appellant-accused became nervous and released

Ms. Ruchika and fell down on his chair.  When she informed

the appellant-accused that coach has refused to come to his

office,  the appellant-accused rudely ordered her to go again

23

Page 24

and call the coach personally.  In the meantime, Ms. Ruchika

came to her side and went out of the office.  When PW-13 was

trying to follow her, the appellant-accused told her “ask her to

cool down, I will do whatever she will say”.  Thereafter, PW-13

followed  Ms.  Ruchika  and  when  she  reached  near  her,

Ruchika  started  weeping  loudly.   When  she  asked  Ms.

Ruchika as to what had happened, she narrated that as soon

as she left to fetch the coach, the appellant-accused caught

hold of her hand which she got released with great difficulty,

but he again caught hold of her hand and with his other hand

the appellant-accused caught hold of her waist and dragged

her towards him and embraced her.  She further told her that

in the meantime when PW-13 reached there, he got scared and

immediately released her.  After discussion as to whether the

incident  be  disclosed to  their  parents  or  not,  both  of  them

decided not to inform their parents about the incident as the

appellant-accused, being a high ranking police officer, could

harm their families.  The molestation of Ms. Ruchika, at the

hands of the appellant-accused is very well proved from the

deposition of PW-13.  There was no reason for Ms. Aradhana

24

Page 25

(PW-13) to depose falsely.  In fact, she witnessed the actual act

of  molestation  of  Ms.  Ruchika  at  the  hands  of  the

appellant-accused.  Further, the fact regarding molestation of

Ms. Ruchika by the appellant-accused has been stated on oath

by Shri Anand Prakash (PW-1), Mrs. Madhu Prakash (PW-2),

Mr. Manish Arora (PW-3), Mr. Vipul Chanan (PW-4) and Shri

S.C. Girhotra (PW-15).  There is no reason as to why PW-13

and other aforementioned prosecution witnesses would falsely

implicate the appellant-accused in the case.  

14) Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana visited the lawn tennis

court  on  14.08.1990,  at  4:30  p.m.,  instead  of  their  usual

timing  deliberately  in  order  to  avoid  confrontation  with  the

appellant-accused, who usually used to visit the court in the

evening daily.  At about 6.30 p.m., when they were about to

return after practice, Shri Paltoo – the ball picker, came over

the  lawn  tennis  court  and  told  Ms.  Ruchika  that  the

appellant-accused  had  called  her  in  his  office  immediately.

However,  Ms.  Ruchika  refused  to  go  there  and  told  Ms.

Aradhana that since they had not informed about the incident

which  took  place  on  12.08.1990  to  their  parents  that  has

25

Page 26

emboldened the appellant-accused.  Thereupon, they decided

to inform about the overt act of the appellant-accused to their

parents.  They went to the house of Ms. Ruchika where they

met Shri S.C. Girhotra - father of Ms. Ruchika.  Ms. Ruchika

started  narrating  the  incident  of  molestation  to  her  father,

however, she could not narrate the entire incident and broke

down, whereupon her father told Ms. Aradhana to take Ms.

Ruchika  to  her  mother.   They  went  to  the  house  of  Ms.

Aradhana where Mrs. Madhu Prakash (PW-2) and Shri Anand

Prakash (PW-1) were present. Ms. Ruchika disclosed the entire

incident to PW-2, who further informed her husband about the

said incident.  Thereafter, Ms. Ruchika, Ms. Aradhana, Shri

Anand Prakash, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Shri S.C. Girhotra

and  other  persons  went  to  HLTA  court  to  meet  the

appellant-accused  wherefrom  they  came  to  know  that  the

appellant-accused had already left for Chandigarh.   

15) On 15.08.1990, a number of persons, who were mostly

players and their parents, gathered at the residence of Shri

Anand  Prakash.  They  decided  that  the  incident  should  be

brought to the notice of higher authorities including the Chief

26

Page 27

Minister  of  Haryana.  Accordingly,  a  Memorandum  was

prepared.  A  number  of  copies  of  this  Memorandum  were

prepared for being handed over to different authorities.  This

Memorandum  was  signed  by  Sh.  Anand  Prakash,  Ms.

Ruchika,  Mrs.  Madhu Prakash,  Meenu,  Sangeet,  Aradhana,

Anirudh,  Beenu,  Naresh  Mittal,  C.S.  Gupta  and  Shri  I.D.

Mittal.  The  witnesses  who  were  examined  in  the  court

identified their signatures as well as signatures of Ms. Ruchika

on  the  Memorandum.   The  appellant-accused  disputed  the

genuineness  of  signatures  of  Ms.  Ruchika.   He  tried  to

substantiate  his  contention  by  examining  the  hand  writing

expert. The contention of the appellant-accused is not tenable

as the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution

and in whose  presence  the  Memorandum was  signed,  have

identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika. Shri Anand Prakash

has proved the preparation of Memorandum.  In this regard,

the law is very clear that a fact should be proved by the best

available  evidence.   The  witnesses  had  identified  the

signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the Memorandum, therefore, the

evidence of the hand writing expert cannot considered to be

27

Page 28

safe and it requires corroboration from independent witnesses.

As already stated, the signatures of Ms. Ruchika have been

proved by the witnesses who have signed the Memorandum

and are direct, primary and best available evidence in the case

and, therefore, the same can be relied upon.  

16) On 16.08.1990, the Memorandum was given to Shri J.K.

Duggal (PW-12), the then Secretary (Home) who assured them

that the matter would be enquired into.  He asked the persons

who had presented the Memorandum to him to reach the lawn

tennis court where Shri S.K. Joshi, the then SDM would also

be reaching.  After reaching there, they found a Notice dated

15.08.1990 declaring suspension of Ms. Ruchika with effect

from 13.08.1990 displayed on the  Notice  Board.   Shri  S.K.

Joshi,  the  then  SDM  also  reached  there.   Shri  Kuldeep

Singh-the Manager and Shri T. Thomas-the Coach were also

present there.  On being asked, Shri  Kuldeep Singh, in the

presence of witnesses, informed that he has affixed the notice

on  the  directions  of  the  appellant-accused.   He  further

disclosed  that  Ms.  Ruchika  has  committed  no  act  of

indiscipline.   On being asked,  Shri  Kuldeep Singh gave the

28

Page 29

same facts in writing on the Notice. This fact was confirmed by

the Coach - Shri T. Thomas and he signed at a point where the

following  words were written “I  support  the  contents  of  the

endorsement of Sh. Kuldeep Singh”.  He was also asked to give

it in writing, if any act of indiscipline has been committed by

Ms. Ruchika. On this, he made an endorsement to the effect

that to the best of his knowledge Ms. Ruchika has not done

any  act  of  misbehavior  or  indiscipline  in  the  HLTA  tennis

court.  This notice was produced by Shri Anand Prakash at

the time of his deposition before the trial court.  It has also

come in his evidence that said notice was given to him by the

SDM  immediately  after  making  endorsement.   These  facts

have  been  proved  by  PW-1,  PW-2,  PW-3,  PW-4,  PW-5  and

PW-13.   The  presence  of  Shri  Kuldeep  Singh  and  Shri  T.

Thomas on that day and time has already been proved by the

then SHO, Panchkula who was on patrolling duty on that date

and  reached  the  spot  on  receiving  verbal  transmission

message about the incident.

29

Page 30

17) Shri R.R. Singh was directed by the Chief Minister and

Home Minister of the State of Haryana to conduct an enquiry

into  the  allegations  contained  in  the  Memorandum.  In

compliance  of  the  said  order,  Shri  R.R.  Singh recorded the

statements  of  the  witnesses  including  Mrs.  Madhu Prakash

(PW-2), Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), Shri S.C. Girhotra (PW-15) and

Shri Anil  Kumar.  The statements of  Ms. Ruchika and Shri

Anand Prakash (PW-1) were also recorded. After the enquiry,

he recommended that a case under the relevant provisions of

the IPC be got registered.  Despite the fact that Shri R.R. Singh

had  recommended  the  registration  of  a  case  against  the

appellant-accused,  no  action  was  taken  by  the  State

Government. It is most surprising that no value was attached

to the said Report and to the recommendations made by such

a high ranking police officer  i.e.,  Director General  of  Police,

Haryana.   

18) It  has  also  been  argued  from  the  side  of  the

appellant-accused that Shri B.S. Ojha and Shri J.K. Duggal

were  having  great  grudge  against  him.   It  was  further

contended that  the  relations  between the  appellant-accused

30

Page 31

and  Shri  R.R.  Singh  were  strained  since  1976.  But  this

suggestion was denied by the witness while appearing in the

court.   Learned senior  counsel  for  the CBI has strenuously

submitted that a proper report was given by Shri R.R. Singh

and it is a matter of common experience that no girl or father

would make a false complaint  of  such heinous nature even

against their enemy.   

19) Shri  R.R.  Singh had conducted  the  enquiry  under  the

orders  of  the  Government  of  Haryana,  therefore,  he  was

competent to investigate/enquire into the allegations made in

the  Memorandum. As  such,  all  the  statements  recorded by

him are admissible under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence

Act for the purpose of  corroboration.  Shri J.K. Duggal and

Shri B.S. Ojha are independent witnesses and they have no

grudge against the appellant-accused as alleged by the learned

senior  counsel.   For  the  sake  of  arguments,  even  if  it  is

assumed to be correct that there was some dispute over the

control  of  HLTA between them, it  was not such a big issue

which  would  have  induced  them  to  implicate  the

appellant-accused falsely.  There is no evidence on record to

31

Page 32

substantiate the allegations that these two officers were in any

way  instrumental  in  preparation  of  Memorandum  or

implicating the appellant-accused in the case. There is also no

evidence on record to suggest any nexus of these two officers

with  Shri  Anand  Prakash  (PW-1)  and  Shri  S.C.  Girhotra

(PW-15).  There is no evidence to suggest any enmity between

the  appellant-accused  and  PW-1  to  implicate  him  in  a

fabricated case.  It is further the case of the appellant-accused

that statement recorded by Shri R.R. Singh cannot be used by

the prosecution for the purpose of corroboration under Section

157 of the Evidence Act. The contention of the accused is not

tenable  at  all.  This  section  envisages  two  categories  of

statements of witnesses, which can be used for corroboration.

First is the statement made by a witness to any person at or

about the time when the incident took place. The second is the

statement made by him to any authority legally competent to

investigate the matter.  Such statements gain admissibility, no

matter  that  it  was made long after  the  incident.  But  if  the

statement  was made to  non-authority,  it  loses its  probative

value due to lapse of time. Shri R.R. Singh was an authority

32

Page 33

legally competent to investigate the incident.  He was asked by

the State Government to enquire into the facts given in the

Memorandum  and  report  thereon.  To  make  a  person  an

authority legally competent to investigate, it is not necessary

that he should be having authority which flows from a Statute.

It is sufficient that such person was authorized legally by the

State Government to investigate the matter. Hence, we are of

the  view  that  Shri  R.R.  Singh  was  authority  competent  to

investigate the fact in question and the statements given by

the  witnesses  before  him  are  admissible  in  evidence

irrespective  of  time  gap  between  the  time  when  incidents

occurred and the date on which the statements were given.

Shri  R.R.  Singh  was  in  fact  competent  to  investigate  the

matter since the enquiry conducted by him was merely a fact

finding  enquiry.   The  undisputed  fact  is  that  nothing

happened even after the submission of the report by Shri R.R.

Singh because no action was taken by the State Government

on  the  same.  Further,  all  the  witnesses  including  Sh.  J.K.

Duggal and Shri B.S. Ojha examined by the prosecution are

33

Page 34

the independent witnesses and the enmity,  as suggested by

the appellant-accused, is not proved, as discussed above.  

20) Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant-accused  has

contended that in the present fact situation, how a person can

embrace  other  while  standing  behind  the  table  and  then

suddenly fall  into his chair on the entry of  PW-13.  In this

regard, we have carefully considered the evidence given by the

prosecution, especially the evidence of PW-13.  She, being the

sole  witness  to  prove  the  actus  reus,  her  evidence  should

receive  some careful  consideration  and  we  do  not  find  any

reason for her to depose falsely against the appellant-accused.

There is, thus, every possibility that Ms. Ruchika could have

been embraced by the appellant in the manner as described by

PW-13.   

21) The High Court, on proper re-appreciation of the entire

evidence,  came to the right conclusion that the prosecution

was successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt

and the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC was

made out.  There is devastating increase in cases relating to

crime against women in the world and our country is also no

34

Page 35

exception to it. Although the statutory provisions provide strict

penal  action  against  such  offenders,  it  is  for  the  courts  to

ultimately decide whether such incident has occurred or not.

The  courts  should  be  more  cautious  in  appreciating  the

evidence and the accused should not be left scot-free merely

on  flimsy  grounds.   By  the  consistent  evidence  of  Ms.

Aradhana  (PW-13),  the  prosecution  has  proved  beyond

reasonable  doubt  the  offence  committed  by  the  appellant

under Section 354 of the IPC.  A charge under Section 354 of

the IPC is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult

to rebut. It is not that on account of alleged enmity between

the appellant and Shri Duggal and Shri Ojha, he was falsely

implicated.  It  would,  however,  be unusual  in a conservative

society  that  a  woman would  be  used  as  a  pawn to  wreak

vengeance.  When  a  plea  is  taken  by  the  appellant-accused

that  he  has  been  falsely  implicated,  courts  have  a  duty  to

make  deeper  scrutiny  of  the  evidence  and  decide  the

acceptability  or  otherwise  of  the  accusations  made  against

him. In the instant case,  both the trial  court  and the High

Court have done that. There is no scope for taking a different

35

Page 36

view from the view already been taken by the courts below.

The  occurrence  of  the  overt  act  is  well  proved  by  the

unimpeachable testimony of the eye-witness – Ms. Aradhana

(PW-13).

22) In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of

the IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely

to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of

having such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract

conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. A careful

approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a

case alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of

the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under:

(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;

(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on    

    her; and

(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the  

     woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.

23) This Court, in Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala (2004)

1 SCC 215, held as under  

36

Page 37

“10.  Intention  is  not  the  sole  criterion  of  the  offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A  victim  of  molestation  and  indignation  is  in  the  same position  as  an  injured  witness  and  her  testimony  should receive the same weight …..”  

24) It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is

one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved

like other ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also

equally true that those ingredients being state of mind may

not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred

from  the  attending  circumstances  of  a  given  case.  The

sequence of  events which we have detailed earlier  indicates

that  the  appellant-accused  had  the  requisite  culpable

intention.  

25) This Court,  in  Tarkeshwar Sahu vs.  State of Bihar,

(2006) 8 SCC 560, held as under:-

“39. So far as the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge that the act of the accused would result in outraging her modesty is the gravamen of the offence.

37

Page 38

40. The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex.”

26) With regard to the delay of about 6 days in presenting the

complaint to the SHO, this Court is of the view that the same

has been duly explained.  In a tradition-bound non-permissive

society in India, it would be extremely reluctant to admit that

any  incident  which  is  likely  to  reflect  upon  chastity  of  a

woman had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being

ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society.

In  the  instant  case,  the  victim-Ms.  Ruchika  not  informing

about  the  incident  to  the  parents  under  the  circumstances

that  the  appellant-accused,  who  being  a  very  senior  police

officer of the State, was reasonable and it would not have been

an easy decision for her to speak out.  In the normal course of

human conduct, this unmarried minor girl, would not like to

give publicity to the traumatic experience she has undergone

and  felt  terribly  embarrassed  in  relation  to  the  incident  to

narrate it to her parents and others overpowered by a feeling

38

Page 39

of shame and her natural inclination would be to avoid talking

about  it  to  anyone,  lest  the  family  name  and  honour  is

brought into controversy. After informing the incident to her

parents, the follow up action was immediately taken by the

residents  and  the  fellow  players  and  a  Memorandum

containing  allegations  against  the  appellant-accused  was

prepared  and  submitted  before  the  then  Secretary  (Home).

Therefore, giving a due consideration to the appellant-accused,

once  the  victim  and  her  family  members  got  assurance  of

justice  from  the  superior  authorities,  they  lodged  a  formal

complaint against the appellant-accused.

27) With regard to the contention of learned senior counsel

for the appellant-accused that the signature of Ms. Ruchika on

the Memorandum was forged though she signed the same in

front  of  Shri  Anand  Prakash,  Shri  S.C.  Girhotra,  Ms.

Aradhana and Mrs. Madhu Prakash and they have admitted

the  same,  we are of  the opinion that  expert  evidence  as to

handwriting  is  only  opinion  evidence  and  it  can  never  be

conclusive.  Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually

to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or

39

Page 40

circumstantial evidence.  The sole evidence of a handwriting

expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding

about the writing being of a certain person or not.  A court is

competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with

others which are admitted or proved to be his writings.  It may

not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person’s

writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert

comparison,  but  a  court  can itself  compare  the  writings  in

order  to  appreciate  properly  the  other  evidence  produced

before it in that regard.  The opinion of a handwriting expert is

also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but

that too is not conclusive.  It has also been held by this Court

in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting

expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding

about the writing being of a certain person or not.  It follows

that it  is not essential  that the handwriting expert must be

examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing.

It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place

of substantive evidence.  Before acting on such evidence, it is

40

Page 41

usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence

or by circumstantial evidence.   

28) In  Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs.  The State of Bombay AIR

1957 SC 857, this Court has held as under:-  

“11…..Learned  counsel  objected  to  this  approach  on  a question  of  proof.  We  are,  however,  unable  to  see  any objection.  The  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  a  document  is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of  a  person  who  saw  the  document  being  written  or  the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the  contents,  or  of  the  signature,  by  one  of  the  modes provided in Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may  also  be  proved  by  internal  evidence  afforded  by  the contents of  the document.  This  last  mode of  proof  by the contents may be of considerable value where the disputed document  purports  to  be  a  link  in  a  chain  of correspondence,  some  links  in  which  are  proved  to  the satisfaction of the court. In such a situation the person who is the recipient  of the document,  be it  either a letter or a telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with reference  to  his  prior  knowledge  of  the  writing  or  the signature of the alleged sender limited though it may be, as also  his  knowledge  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  chain  of correspondence,  to  speak  to  its  authorship.  In  an appropriate case the court may also be in a position to judge whether  the  document  constitutes  a  genuine  link  in  the chain  of  correspondence  and  thus  to  determine  its authorship.  We  are  unable,  therefore,  to  say  that  the approach  adopted  by  the  courts  below  in  arriving  at  the conclusion that the letters are genuine is open to any serious legal objection. The question, if any, can only be as to the adequacy of the material on which the conclusion as to the genuineness of the letters is arrived at. That however is a matter which we cannot permit to be canvassed before us.

41

Page 42

29) In  Smt. Bhagwan  Kaur vs.  Shri Maharaj  Krishan

Sharma And Others (1973)  4 SCC 46,  this  Court  held as

under:-

“26…..It is no doubt true that the prosecution led evidence of handwriting  expert  to  show  the  similarity  of  handwriting between  (PW  1/A)  and  other  admitted  writings  of  the deceased, but in this respect, we are of the opinion that in view of  the main essential  features of  the case,  not much value can be attached to the expert evidence. The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail  character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. In  Sri  Sri  Sri  Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v.  Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat this Court observed that conclusions based upon  mere  comparison  of  handwriting  must  at  best  be indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case.”

30) It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand

writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the

same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for

acquittal.  The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too

much weight  to the evidence of  handwriting expert.   It  can

rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.  Before

acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated

either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.   

42

Page 43

31)  It  is  the  claim  of  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellant-accused that  the present case is  fabricated and a

result of  the rivalry between HLTA and HTA.  Further,  Shri

Anand  Prakash  has  derived  professional  benefit  from  this

exercise besides venting his longstanding grudge against the

appellant-accused.     It does not stand to logic that having

regard to the Indian social  set up, any father would let his

daughter’s honour and reputation be damaged merely because

one  of  his  associate  has  his  own  agenda  against  the

appellant-accused.  However, each case has to be determined

on the touchstone of the factual matrix thereof.  In the instant

case, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be

said that the tender age of  the victim was exploited for the

benefit of Shri Anand Prakash (PW-1)

32) With regard to the contention of learned senior counsel

that non-examination of two important site witnesses viz., Shri

Paltoo-the  ball  picker  and  Shri  T.Thomas-the  Coach  draws

adverse inference against the prosecution, the High Court has

rightly held that adverse inference against the prosecution can

be drawn only if it withholds certain evidence and not merely

43

Page 44

on account of its failure to obtain certain evidence.  We are

also of the opinion that they were not in any way connected

with  the  actual  commission  of  offence  and  even  in  their

absence, the commission of the offence of molestation by the

appellant-accused stands well  proved by the unimpeachable

testimony of the eye witness (PW-13) to the incident.   

33) No particular number of witnesses is required for proving

a certain fact.  It is the quality and not the quantity of the

witnesses that matters.  Evidence is weighed and not counted.

Evidence of even a single eye witness, truthful, consistent and

inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining conviction.  It

is not necessary that all those persons who were present at

the  spot  must  be  examined  by  the  prosecution in  order  to

prove  the  guilt  of  the  accused.   Having  examined  all  the

witnesses, even if other persons present nearby not examined,

the evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded.

34) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion

that  Ms.  Aradhana  (PW-13)  withstood  her  testimony  from

beginning till the end and her deposition was found reliable

and corroborative with other prosecution witnesses and both

44

Page 45

the courts below were right in upholding the conviction of the

appellant-accused under Section 354 of the IPC.      

35) With regard to sentence of the appellant-accused, learned

senior counsel on his behalf has pointed out certain mitigating

factors which are - old age of  the appellant-accused, health

ailments,  responsibility  of  looking  after  the  unmarried

daughter  suffering  from  congenital  heart  disease,  past

meritorious service and prolonged trial.  Keeping in view the

aforementioned  factors  especially  the  old  age  and  physical

condition  of  the  appellant-accused,  we  do  not  think  it

expedient to put him back in jail. While we uphold the findings

as to the guilt of the appellant-accused, we are of the opinion

that the cause of justice would be best sub-served when the

sentence  of  the  appellant-accused  would  be  altered  to  the

period already undergone.  We, therefore, reduce the sentence

of the appellant to the period already undergone by him as a

special case considering his very advanced age.  

36) In  view  of  the  foregoing  discussion,  we  confirm  the

conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 354 of the

45

Page 46

IPC  while  modifying  the  sentence  to  the  period  already

undergone.  The appeal is disposed of with the above terms.

...…………….…………………………J.            (V. GOPALA GOWDA)                                  

 .….....…………………………………J.    (R.K. AGRAWAL)                          

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 23, 2016.  

46