KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 officers 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 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 314, 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 Sections 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 Sections 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.

(3.) 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 appellants 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-examination of some of the witnesses cited by the prosecution.