The Delhi High Court has overturned the acquittal of a man accused of sexually harassing his neighbour, rejecting arguments about the woman’s clothing, character, religion and lifestyle.
In a judgment delivered on August 10, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha convicted the accused under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which applied to the 2013 case.
The case dates back to 17 July 2013. The woman had alleged that the accused, who was her neighbour, had harassed her, made sexually coloured remarks and touched her despite her objection. The trial court acquitted him in 2014, following which the State challenged the decision before the High Court.
‘Jeans May Corrupt Young Boys’
A key part of the High Court's judgment concerned the questions put to the woman during cross-examination.
She was questioned about the clothes she wore, including whether she generally wore western clothing. The court noted that the defence had also referred to objections raised by residents of the locality over her attire.
The High Court found this line of questioning irrelevant and improper.
It said a woman's choice of clothing is a matter of personal choice and cannot be dictated by neighbours, society, an accused person or lawyers appearing in court.
The court specifically addressed the suggestion that a woman wearing jeans could “corrupt young boys”, calling it a “deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset”.
The court said the answer was not to control what girls and women wear, but to teach children to control their conduct, respect personal boundaries and treat others with dignity.
Court Says Clothing Cannot Justify Harassment
The judgment also dealt with complaints made by residents of the locality against the woman.
One such complaint alleged that her clothing had an adverse effect on young boys in the area. The High Court examined the complaint and said it did not disclose any cognisable offence that would have justified police action against her.
The court said the main grievance of the accused and residents appeared to concern the woman's clothing.
It also rejected attempts to bring religion and local customs into the case, saying these had no connection with the question the court had to decide: whether the accused had committed an offence under Section 354A of the IPC.
The court said neither religion nor local custom can be used to justify unlawful conduct or impose restrictions on a woman's personal choices.
‘Cross-Examination Cannot Be A Licence To Humiliate’
The High Court strongly criticised the manner in which the woman was questioned during the trial.
It said the questions about her clothing appeared intended to embarrass, humiliate and morally judge her. The court said such questioning should have been stopped by the trial judge at the outset.
The judgment also stressed that cross-examination, while an important part of a fair trial, cannot be used as a licence to humiliate a witness or attack her dignity.
The court said questions based on a woman's clothing, character, lifestyle, religion or personal choices should not be permitted unless they are strictly relevant to an issue in the case.
It further said judges have a duty to intervene when questioning becomes irrelevant, insulting or intended to shame a witness.
Why Did The High Court Convict The Accused?
The High Court found that the woman's account of the unwanted physical contact had remained consistent in her initial complaint, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and her testimony before the court.
The court noted that she consistently alleged that the accused had touched her cheeks despite her objection. It also found her account regarding stalking to be consistent, although no charge under Section 354D of the IPC for stalking had been framed by the trial court.
The High Court concluded that the accused's act of touching her, together with the comments he made, established an offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.
It therefore found the trial court's conclusions to be erroneous and convicted the accused of sexual harassment.
POCSO Act Was Not Applied
The case had also involved an issue concerning the woman's age.
The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily establish her age or minority. As a result, the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act could not be invoked in the case.
The High Court has not yet decided the sentence. The accused has been directed to appear before the court on August 12, 2026, for hearing on the question of sentence.
Before concluding the judgment, the court also directed that a copy be circulated among Delhi's district judiciary. It asked the Delhi Judicial Academy to incorporate the concerns raised in the judgment into appropriate judicial training and sensitisation programmes.
