Delhi Court Overturns 2025 Assault Conviction Citing Family Enmity, Inconsistencies
A Delhi court has overturned the conviction of a man found guilty of assaulting a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The court cited admitted prior enmity between the two families and serious inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Court Sets Aside Conviction Under IPC Section 354
Additional Sessions Judge Twinkle Wadhwa set aside the 2025 conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The judge held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The court observed that the complaint appeared to be influenced by animosity. It was marred by material contradictions, investigative lapses and the non-examination of a key eyewitness.
Case Dates Back to July 2015 Incident in Seelampur
The case dates back to July 2015. The complainant alleged that while she was sleeping on the terrace of her house in Seelampur, the accused, identified as Samad, trespassed and lay down on the same cot.
She claimed he subjected her to inappropriate physical contact. On raising an alarm, family members intervened and apprehended the accused.
An FIR was subsequently registered. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 354 and 457 of the IPC.
Defence Argued Long-Standing Hostility Between Families
Challenging the conviction recorded by the trial court in April 2025, the defence argued that the long-standing hostility between the two families had not been adequately considered.
They said this hostility had a direct bearing on the credibility of the complaint. Accepting the submission, the appellate court said the admitted enmity assumed significance in light of the inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution case.
Court Points to Variations in Complainant's Statements
The court pointed to variations in the complainant's statements made during police investigation. It noted differences in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and her deposition before the trial court.
Her version changed at each stage. While she initially said her brother and sister had come to her rescue, she later claimed that her aunt, sister and the aunt's son had intervened.
In court, she further alleged that the accused had assaulted her aunt and cousin while fleeing.
Prosecution Failed to Examine Key Witness
The judge also drew an adverse inference from the prosecution's failure to examine the aunt's son, Salmaan, as a witness. The court noted that the investigating officer neither cited him nor explained his omission.
The court further relied on daily diary entries. These recorded the police call as a quarrel involving women, rather than a sexual offence or house trespass.
Substantial Improvements Weaken Prosecution Case
Allowing the appeal, the court said substantial improvements in later statements weaken the prosecution case. It added that introducing graver allegations at a later stage raises a reasonable apprehension of afterthought or tutoring.
The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this instance, the evidence presented failed to meet that standard due to the identified inconsistencies and the context of family enmity.
