New Delhi, Mar 12 (PTI) The allegations at the stage of framing of charges have to be considered at their face value, a Delhi court has held and rejected an appeal filed by a 57-year-old man facing accusation of sexual harassment.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala was hearing the appeal of the man against whom a magisterial court had ordered framing of charges for offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 354 A (sexual harassment), 509 (words, gesture or act intending to insult a woman’s modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 452 (trespassing).
In an order passed on Monday, the judge underlined that a court could accept a revision petition only in cases where a decision was grossly erroneous, not based on evidence, not in compliance with laws, and where judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
“I find that charges framed for offences cannot be termed to be illegal or absurd,” the judge said, adding, “It is well settled that a plea of defence cannot be entertained while deciding the question of charge and the case presented by the prosecution, including the allegations made by the complainant, have to be taken on their face value.” The complainant alleged that the accused and an accomplice trespassed on her house, sexually harassed and threatened her on March 26, 2022.
According to the accused’s plea, there was not a single eyewitness or electronic evidence against him, and the prosecutrix had died by suicide in September 2022.
It said after the woman died, her husband lodged another FIR for the offence of abetment to suicide but the accused was discharged.
The court, however, said the fact of the complainant’s death was to be looked into by the magisterial court and other grounds taken by him failed to show that charges were framed in contravention of settled legal principles. PTI MNR MNR SK SK
About the Author
