Sivakkumar Vs the State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sivakkumar Vs the State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Finding of guilt under Section 354-A IPC and the fine confirmed; sentence of one year simple imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the accused; victim entitled to approach the District Legal Services Authority under the Victim Compensation Scheme for compensation as permissible under law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution adequately proved the accused's presence in the office on 11.02.2017 (a holiday/turn-duty day), given that neither the attendance register nor any other supporting evidence was produced. +6 more

Court's answer

The presence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence is established through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6; the burden-of-presence objection therefore fails on these facts.

Ratio / Principle

P.W.6's deposition that the accused was present in the office on 11.02.2017 was not cross-examined or challenged by the accused and stands unchallenged and uncontroverted, thereby supporting P.W.1's account.

Key takeaways

It is natural for a victim of sudden sexual misconduct to be in shock, remain silent initially, share first with co-workers, then family members, and finally approach the police; such delays in lodging a complaint cannot be viewed as undue, and this conduct lends credence to P.W.1's testimony.ratio¶97
The inconsistency as to whether P.W.1 disclosed the incident to her husband before going to the police station or told him only afterwards is not a material fact; P.W.1's cross-examination on the point is unclear and does not resolve it.ratio¶101

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024, decided 04.11.2025) against concurrent convictions under Section 354(A) IPC for sexually harassing a Steno Typist in the office of the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Welfare Department, Kuppur, Dharmapuri on 11.02.2017 — Madras High Court, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. HELD: (i) Delay by a victim of sudden sexual misconduct in reporting the offence — shock, initial silence, disclosure first to a co-worker/Office Superintendent, then to the Joint Director, and only thereafter to the police — is natural and such delays in lodging a complaint cannot be viewed as undue; the conduct lends credence to the victim's testimony. (ii) The accused's presence in the office on the holiday/turn-duty day is established through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6, whose testimony that the accused was present went wholly unchallenged and uncontroverted; the absence of the attendance register does not unsettle this. (iii) The contradiction between P.W.1 and P.W.2 on whether the husband was told before or after the police complaint, and P.W.3's 'ten days' versus 'more than twenty days' timeline slip, are not material, given the gap between the 2017 incident and the 2022 court examination. (iv) An attempted compromise, abandoned over a demanded sum of Rs. 2,00,000, cannot be used as a circumstance against the accused or in favour of acquittal. (v) The prosecution discharged its onus beyond reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 354-A IPC confirmed. Precedent: Balamurugan vs State (2025 SCC OnLine Madras 4270), relied on by the petitioner's counsel, distinguished — its ratio inapplicable where presence is established by evidence and the victim had the courage to speak the truth. Sentence: one year simple imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (63 days), considering the apology/compromise attempt, the accused's age (51), proceedings since 2017, incarceration undergone, dismissal from service and absence of further contact with the victim; fine of Rs.5,000/- confirmed (already paid); victim permitted to approach the District Legal Services Authority under the Victim Compensation Scheme.

2025:MHC:2730

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

D A T E D : 0 4 . 1 1 . 2 0 2 5

CORAM:

T H E H O N O U R A B L E M R . J U S T I C E D . B H A R A T H A

C H A K R A V A R T H Y

C r l . R . C . N o . 1 2 7 3 o f 2 0 2 4

Sivakumar ... Petitioner Vs

The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri. (Crime No.2 of 2017) ... Respondent

P r a y e r: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S.S 2023, to set aside the judgment dated 05.03.2024 made in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, confirming the judgment dated 09.01.2023 made in C.C.No.55 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Dharmapuri, and to acquit the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabhakaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

1/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Dharmapuri, dated 09.01.2023, in C.C.No.55 of 2017, and confirmed by the judgment dated 05.03.2024, in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. By the said judgment dated 09.01.2023, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 354(A) of IPC and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In case of default in paying the fine, he is to undergo an additional week of simple imprisonment.

On 28.02.2017, when P.W.8 was serving as Inspector of Police at the All

Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, she took up the complaint lodged by P.W.1 (the victim) and registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2017 under Section 354(A) of the IPC. In the said complaint, P.W.1 alleged that she was employed as a Steno Typist in the office of the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Welfare Department, Kuppur, Dharmapuri. On 11.02.2017 (Saturday), she was on her turn duty. That day, Kumar and Rajamani also had their turn duty. She was performing her duties normally. At that time, the accused , Sivakumar, who was working as an Assistant, was also

2/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

present in the office. While checking emails, she noticed the regularisation orders of the Office Superintendents, which were sent via email, and was printing them out. At about 11.30 a.m., the accused approached her and asked about the printouts she was making. She replied that the regularisation orders had arrived and she was keeping them on her table. The accused then came to her table and began reading the printed copies.

While she was there, he suddenly placed both his hands on her cheeks and kissed her on the left cheek. She tried to wriggle free, but he continued to molest her by touching her breasts, causing her significant trauma. Soon afterward, another employee , Marimuthu, came with a milk packet and asked her to prepare tea. At that time, she was unable to tell him what had happened to her. She was in severe mental distress.

Even on the next working day, i.e., on 13.02.2017, she was crying in the office, and at that time, her Office Superintendent (P.W.3) asked her the reason. She disclosed the reason to her, and then it was reported to the Joint Director. The Joint Director inquired about the incident and promised her that he would take

3/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

action against the accused. However, even after 10 days, no action was taken against the accused. She was subjected to severe mental harassment and was unable to be normal at her home or at the office; therefore, she lodged a complaint on 23.02.2011.

Based on the complaint, a case was registered, and P.W.8 completed the investigation and submitted a final report proposing the accused guilty of the offences under Section 354(A) of IPC. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.55 of 2017. After summons were issued, copies furnished, and a grant of opportunity, a charge was framed for the offence under Section 354(A) of the IPC. Upon being questioned, the accused denied the charge and stood trial. To establish the case, the victim was examined as P.W.1. In her testimony, P.W.1 described the incident that occurred on 11.02.2017, stating that she could not immediately reveal it to anyone and that on the Monday next, she informed P.W.3. She also mentioned the Joint Director's promise of action, which was not fulfilled, leading her to lodge a complaint. She was cross-examined in detail about the delay in lodging the complaint and about the complaint given by the accused to the Joint Director, suggesting that she was not working properly and, therefore, falsely implicated the accused.

4/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

The husband of the victim was examined as P.W.2, who deposed that he

works in the Police Department, Dharmapuri. On the day of the occurrence, i.e.,

11.02.2017, after his day's work, he noticed that the victim did not appear normal. When he asked her, she explained that she was feeling dull because she was on her period. Only after 10 days, when her behaviour continued to be abnormal, did he persistently inquire, and she eventually revealed the truth. He then encouraged her to file a complaint. He was also cross-examined in detail about when he was informed of the incident and about the possibility of influencing the police to register a case, given his position in the police force.

The Office Superintendent, to whom the victim shared details of the incident on the next working day, i.e., 13.02.2017, was examined as P.W.3. She testified that the victim had informed her about the incident, and she, in turn, reported the matter to the officer in charge, na m ely, the Joint Director. Another employee , Kumar, who was on duty in the office on the day of the incident, was examined as P.W.4. He deposed that they were on shift duty, and at about 11:00 AM, they went to a temple. Afterwards, they brought a milk packet and handed it

5/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

over to P.W.1 for making tea, which she also prepared. He also was a witness to the observation mahazar Ex.P2. Another lady Office Assistant, examined as P.W.5, testified that five years earlier, on a day when P.W.1 was crying in the office and submitted that police inquired her and she was treated as hostile.

The Assistant, viz., Marimuthu, who was working in the Siddha Medical Department, deposed that he came to the office of the victim as well as the accused on 11.02.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., where he saw four employees, including the accused and the victim, on duty. Thereafter, he also went outside with the other two employees while the milk packet was procured. He deposed that after 10 days, the police examined him, and he was also treated as hostile. He was crossexamined to a limited extent, during which he stated that he heard about the incident involving the victim.

Another Record Clerk working in the same office and on duty on the day of the incident was examined as P.W.7. He deposed that he knew nothing about the incident and was declared hostile, being cross-examined by the prosecution. However, he did not give any answers favorable to the prosecution, even during

6/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

cross-examination. The investigating officer, P.W.8, was examined and crossexamined in detail regarding the delay in lodging the complaint, etc.

When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the accused responded by stating that the evidence was false. Thereafter, no evidence was presented on behalf of the defence. The trial Court considered the case. It rejected the accused's contentions and accepted the version of P.W.1—the victim—finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 354A of the IPC and sentencing them as stated supra. Aggrieved, Cr.A.No.14 of 2023 was filed, and the Lower Appellate Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence. The present criminal revision petition is filed against this decision.

Mr. C. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, took this Court through the entire evidence on record, arguing that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused was present in the office on the day of the incident, i.e., 11.02.2017, which was a holiday, and only persons on duty are supposed to be present. Neither the attendance register nor any other evidence was produced by

7/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

the prosecution to support this, and therefore, the fundamental fact of the accused's presence at the scene is not established and remains questionable. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in B ala murugan vs State (2 0 2 5 S C C O n line M a d r as 4 2 7 0), particularly paragraph 4.4, to support the argument that it is the prosecution's burden to prove the accused's presence at the scene of the offence.

The second point raised by the learned counsel is that there is a significant delay in lodging the complaint, as well as delays at each stage of the proceedings. First, it is evident from the victim's own evidence that when her husband inquired about the incident, she did not disclose it to him. In fact, there was a considerable delay before she revealed the incident to her husband. When she was said to have wriggled out of the accused's actions, and shortly after, the other employees arrived with the milk packet, she did not choose to disclose the incident to them. Instead, she continued her routine work. Even to P.W.3, she disclosed only on Monday. Therefore, there is a delay.

He would further argue that it is the prosecution's case that P.W.3, in turn, informed the same to the Joint Director, who had promised action. The

8/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

prosecution provides no explanation for not examining the said Joint Director , Nedumaran, as a witness in this case. Therefore, whether P.W.1 disclosed this on the next working day remains doubtful.

In any case, the victim lodged the complaint only on 23.02.2017, after a significant delay. Even after 23.02.2017, when the complaint was reportedly lodged, the police took 5 days to register the FIR, which was registered only on 28.02.2017. This unexplained delay raises a reasonable doubt about the incident itself and also opens the possibility of embellishment or artificial versions of the incident. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

The learned counsel argued that, upon examining the entire evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, contradictions emerge regarding key facts. During crossexamination, P.W.2 – the husband – stated that, after persistently requesting, P.W.1 revealed the incident to him, and then he took her to the police station to file a complaint. In contrast, P.W.1 testified that she never disclosed the incident to her husband, and he only learned about it when the police questioned her about her complaint. This marks a crucial contradiction in the case. Additionally, there are

9/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

inconsistencies between P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their testimonies.

It is also noteworthy that, except for P.W.3, all other witnesses— including the other employees and the individual from a different department— were treated as hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. Besides the victim, there are only two relevant witnesses in this case: P.W.3, to whom the victim shared her version, and Nedumaran, the head of the department to whom the incident was also disclosed. As mentioned earlier, Nedumaran was not even examined by the investigating officer. Regarding P.W.3, she was extensively crossexamined, and her testimony contains contradictions. She states that she was questioned by the police ten days after the incident, but the complaint was filed only on 23.02.2017, and the FIR was registered on 28.02.2017. Therefore, her statement is also questionable. Moreover, the fact that P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted to resolving the issue through a compromise—and that the compromise failed because the accused could not pay the demanded sum of Rs. 2,00,000—further raises suspicions regarding the victim's motive.

The learned counsel finally argued that P.W.2 is employed in the Police

10/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

Department, which enabled him to manipulate the entire process of lodging the complaint and the subsequent investigation. He contended that the accused was wrongly convicted by the trial Court, and the Lower Appellate Court also failed to consider all these facts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a suitable case for this Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

Per contra, Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), would submit that from the reading of the chief examination of P.W.1, it would be seen that her conduct was not normal because nobody can go around immediately complaining about an act of sexual misconduct. Any victim would be in a state of shock and thereafter try to cope. But, in this case, instead of that, she shared it with her co-employee and then with the higher official, and only afterward came to the police. Therefore, the said conduct of the victim cannot be viewed as a delay, especially in cases relating to sexual harassment.

As far as the presence of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has proved it through the testimony of P.W.1, which is also corroborated by P.W.3 and P.W.4. The other contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the

11/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

petitioner are not material and cannot be considered, especially when both the Courts below have evaluated the evidence and found that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond any reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution did not examine the Joint Director as a witness, his evidence is relevant only for the purpose of delay. Therefore, the lack of explanation for not examining Nedumaran is not fatal to the case. He accordingly submits that there is nothing for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

20.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of this case.

21. The following is the charge that is framed against the accused:

“,t;tHf;fpd; rhl;rp 1 jUkg[hp fhty; epiya vy;iyf;Fl;gl;l Fg;g{h; eyg;gzpfs; ,af;Fdh; mYtyfj;jpy; RUf;bfGj;J ? jl;lr;ruhf gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh; vd;Wk;. fle;j 11/02/2017/k; njjp fhiy 11/30 kzpf;F rhl;rp 1 ,Uf;ifapy; mkh;e;J fzpzpapy; ntiy bra;J bfhz;oUe;jnghJ vjphpahfpa ePh;. ahUk; ,y;yhj neuk; ghh;j;J ifahy;. rhl;rp 1d; tpUg;gj;jpw;F khwhf fd;dj;ij gpoj;J ,Gj;J tyJ fd;dj;jpy; Kj;jk; bfhLj;Jk;. khh;gfj;ij bjhl;L mGj;jpa[k; bgz;zpd; khdj;ij ,Hpt[ gLj;Jk; tifapy; ele;Js;sJ ,/j/r/ gphpt[ 354(v)d; fPH; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; tprhhpf;fj;jf;fJk;. jz;of;fj;jf;fJkhd Fw;wj;ij bra;Js;sPh;/”

12/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

To prove the same, P.W.1, the victim, was examined. P.W.1 clearly stated that she had a turn duty on 11.02.2017 and arrived at the office around 10:20 a.m., where she was working. At about 11:00 a.m., the accused engaged her in a conversation, approached her table, and committed the sexual acts mentioned earlier in her complaint. She further explained that she was in a state of shock when other witnesses arrived and handed her a milk packet for making tea, and she stated that she could not immediately share what had happened with the other male members.

Thereafter, on the next working day, she was not her usual self in the office, and PW.3 and PW.5 (the hostile witness) enquired about her condition. Only then did she take them to a secluded place near the restroom and disclose the incident. Subsequently, PW.3 reported the matter to the Joint Director. As is often the case in a misogynistic society, the Joint Director initially advised the victim to remain silent and not to disclose it to her family members, assuring her that he would simply admonish the employee and resolve the issue. However, no action was taken. Even while narrating all the above, the victim repeatedly broke down in

13/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

the witness box, which the Trial Court duly records.

To corroborate the victim's evidence, P.W.3 clearly and categorically deposed that the victim was on turn duty on 11.02.2017 and explained how, on 13.02.2017, the victim was not normal, was crying, and, upon inquiry, the victim disclosed the incident to her. She also reported it immediately to the head of the office, viz., the Joint Director.

P.W.6 has clearly deposed that he knew the victim and the accused. He

came to the office on 11.02.2017 and saw both the victim and the accused present. He also accompanied other employees to procure milk. There was no crossexamination of P.W.6 on behalf of the accused, and P.W.6's statement that the accused was present in the office remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. Therefore, it supports P.W.1's deposition that the accused was present in the office on 11.02.2017 and involved in the incident. The accused did not claim in crossexamination of the other witnesses that he was never present in the office. Further, P.W.6's statement that the accused was present has not been challenged; his version stands uncontroverted.

14/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

Aside from this, in offences related to sexual harassment, when the accused exhibits predatory behaviour—especially in the absence of any other person—and acts in a particular manner towards the victim, and when the victim has taken sufficient steps to free herself, tried to cope. Thereafter, as hours pass by, the incident haunts her, causing severe mental pressure and trauma. She experiences the grave harassment and undergoes the mental torture. It is natural for any victim to be in shock, remain silent initially, then share with co-workers, later with family members, and finally approach the police; such delays in lodging a complaint cannot be viewed as undue. On the contrary, this conduct only lends credence to the testimony of P.W.1. A victim of sudden sexual misconduct, like in this case, cannot be expected to immediately publicise and disclose to everyone how the accused behaved towards her. Every victim will respond in her own way, which has to be understood from her point of view. The conduct in the instant case does not seem abnormal, nor does it cast doubt on the prosecutrix's version. There is no significant circumstance, shaky evidence, or doubt to disbelieve P.W.1’s account in this case.

15/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

Regarding the arguments about the contradiction, there appears to be an inconsistency concerning whether P.W.1 initially disclosed the matter to her husband and then went to the police station or if she lodged the complaint with the police and later told her husband. However, during P.W.1's cross-examination, the subsequent sentences are unclear and do not clarify this point. In any case, this contradiction cannot be considered a material fact. Likewise, P.W.3's testimony indicates she was examined 10 days after the incident, but it was actually more than 20 days later. Again, this does not amount to a material contradiction, considering the time gap between the incident in 2017 and the witnesses' examination in court in 2022.

Regarding the argument about the compromise, any settlement is always without prejudice, and in a criminal case, it depends on the victim's mentality to forgive and move on. Merely making an attempt cannot be used as a circumstance against the accused or as a favourable factor for acquittal. Therefore, the argument of relating to the compromise attempt to the merits of guilt is rejected.

As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

16/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

petitioner are concerned, it can be seen that there can be no disagreement about the propositions that were argued. Firstly, it was the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused was present at the scene of the occurrence, and secondly, it is not prudent to convict a person solely because the offence is serious and the victim often feels reluctant to speak the truth. In the instant case, the presence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence is established through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6. Furthermore, in this case, the victim had the courage to speak the truth, and therefore, the ratio of the said judgment cannot be applied to the present facts. Accordingly, I am unable to find merit in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

On the other hand, after a thorough review of the evidence on record, as well as the judgments of the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court, I find that the findings of guilt are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, I confirm the conviction of the petitioner for the offense under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code.

17/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

Adverting to the question of sentence, firstly, the fact that the evidence on record discloses an attempt to apologise to the victim, and the fact that the victim and her husband once considered forgiving the accused by engaging in a process of compromise, is considered. Secondly, the accused is now 51 years old and has been facing the proceedings since 2017. Thirdly, he has so far undergone incarceration for a period of 63 days is taken into account. Fourthly, the accused is dismissed from service, and there is no further chance of the victim encountering him on a day-to-day basis. They are also not residing the same neighbourhood.

For all the above reasons, I am of the view that the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed by the trial Court for a period of one year can be modified and reduced to the period that was already undergone.

Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is partly allowed as follows:

(i) The finding of guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code by the judgment of Trial Court dated 09.01.2023 and Lower Appellate Court dated 05.03.2024 stands confirmed;

18/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

(ii) The amount of fine that is imposed by the trial Court and

confirmed by the appellate Court is also confirmed and the fact that he has already paid the fine amount is recorded.

(iii) The sentence of simple imprisonment of one year is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the accused.

(iv) The victim will be entitled to approach the District Legal Services Authority in accordance with the Victim Compensation Scheme, and upon the victim approaching the same, she may be paid the compensation as may be permissible under law.

04.11.2025

Neutral Citation: Yes ssa

19/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

To

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri.

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.

The Additional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Dharmapuri.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

The District Legal Services Authority, Dharmapuri.

20/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2024

D . B H A R A T H A C H A K R A V A R T H Y , J .

ssa

C r l . R . C . N o . 1 2 7 3 o f 2 0 2 4

0 4 . 1 1 . 2 0 2 5

21/21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

7 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the prosecution adequately proved the accused's presence in the office on 11.02.2017 (a holiday/turn-duty day), given that neither the attendance register nor any other supporting evidence was produced.¶50
The court held
The presence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence is established through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6; the burden-of-presence objection therefore fails on these facts.ratio¶107
2.
Whether the delay in disclosing the incident, lodging the complaint (23.02.2017) and registering the FIR (28.02.2017) raises a reasonable doubt about the incident itself or opens the possibility of embellishment.¶61
The court held
It is natural for a victim of sudden sexual misconduct to be in shock, remain silent initially, share first with co-workers, then family members, and finally approach the police; such delays in lodging a complaint cannot be viewed as undue, and this conduct lends credence to P.W.1's testimony.ratio¶97
3.
Whether the prosecution's failure to examine the Joint Director (Nedumaran), to whom the incident was reportedly reported, leaves the victim's claimed next-working-day disclosure doubtful.¶60
4.
Whether the contradictions between the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding disclosure of the incident to the husband and the police are material.¶62
The court held
The inconsistency as to whether P.W.1 disclosed the incident to her husband before going to the police station or told him only afterwards is not a material fact; P.W.1's cross-examination on the point is unclear and does not resolve it.ratio¶101
5.
Whether the attempted compromise between the parties, abandoned because the accused could not pay the demanded sum of Rs. 2,00,000, casts suspicion on the victim's motive.¶67
The court held
Any settlement is without prejudice; merely making an attempt at compromise cannot be used as a circumstance against the accused or as a favourable factor for acquittal, and the argument relating the compromise attempt to the merits of guilt is rejected.ratio¶102
6.
Whether P.W.2's employment in the Police Department enabled him to manipulate the lodging of the complaint and the subsequent investigation.¶72
7.
Whether this is a suitable case for the Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.¶72
The court held
The Court is unable to find merit in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.ratio¶107