The Delhi High Court has set aside the acquittal of Sajid Ali and convicted him under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the evidence regarding unwanted physical contact and sexually coloured remarks was sufficient to establish the offence.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha pronounced the judgment on August 10, 2026, while hearing the State’s appeal against the 2014 acquittal. The Court, however, held that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily establish the complainant’s age and therefore the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act could not be invoked.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated July 17, 2013, in the Lal Kuan area of Delhi. The complainant alleged that Ali had repeatedly followed her and made sexually coloured remarks. She also alleged that he touched her cheeks and, in her Section 164 statement, referred to unwanted touching of her hips.
The trial court had acquitted him in 2014, citing several discrepancies, including issues concerning the investigation, arrest timing, the recording of the complaint and the absence of independent witnesses.
Court’s Observation
The High Court disagreed with the trial court’s approach. It held that defects in investigation, by themselves, cannot determine the outcome of a criminal case when the substantive evidence can independently be assessed.
The Court also examined the birth certificate relied upon to establish the complainant’s minority. Since the birth had allegedly been registered about 13 years later, the relevant register did not contain the corresponding entry and no supporting order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was produced. The Court therefore held that the prosecution had not satisfactorily established her age and that the POCSO provisions could not be invoked.
A significant part of the judgment concerned the questions put to the complainant about her clothes and the religion of residents in the locality. Justice Sudha observed that such questioning was irrelevant and improper.
“The process of cross-examination cannot be reduced to an instrument of humiliation,” the Court said, stressing that a woman’s choice of clothing neither diminishes her dignity nor justifies unlawful conduct against her.
The Court further held that religion, local customs and clothing had no connection with determining whether the alleged conduct fell within Section 354A IPC.
Decision
The High Court found the complainant’s account consistent on the material aspects, particularly regarding the unwanted touching of her cheeks despite her objection. It concluded that the evidence established the offence under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC.
The Court therefore set aside the trial court’s conclusions and convicted Sajid Ali under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC.
The question of sentence was kept for hearing, with the convicted person directed to appear before the Court on August 12, 2026 under Section 235(2) CrPC.
Case Details:
Case Title: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sajid Ali
Case Number: CRL.A. 1065/2016
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Decision Date: August 10, 2026
-300x169.webp)
