Case – Kanwar Pal Singh Gill v. State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh) through Secy., 2005
Fact
On July 29, 1988, Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, an IAS Officer belonging to the Punjab Cadre and then working as the Special Secretary, Finance, lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh Union Territory alleging commission of offences (under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, and 509 of the IPC) by Mr. K.P.S. Gill, the Director General of Police, Punjab on July 18, 1988 at a dinner party.
K.P.S.Gill had slapped on her posterior (Butt) part of body during dinner party. She was at a dinner party along with her husband. Treating that complaint as the FIR, a case was registered by the Central Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh and investigation was taken up.
Thereafter on November 22, 1988, her husband Mr. B.R. Bajaj, who also happens to be a senior
I.A.S. officer of the Punjab Cadre, lodged a complaint in the Court of the CJM for the same offences, alleging, inter alia, that Mr. Gill being a high-ranking Police Officer, the Chandigarh Police had neither arrested him nor conducted investigation in a fair and impartial manner and apprehending that the Police would conclude the investigation by treating the case as untraced he was filing the complaint.
Both the F.I.R. and the complaint were quashed by order of the High Court on May 29, 1989, on the grounds of non-cognizable offence, application of Section 95 of IPC, fake allegations and unreasonable delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.
The Supreme Court directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh to take cognizance upon the police report in respect of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC and try the case himself in accordance with law. Both appeals were allowed. The decision of the High Court was overruled.
CJM convicted KPS Gill and awarded punishment of imprisonment for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs.500.
In the appeal preferred by the accused, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but altered the sentence and the accused was directed to be released on probation in lieu of custodial sentence. The fine was enhanced to Rs.50,000 with a further direction to pay half of it to the complainant.
The accused challenged the same in the revision before the High Court. The High Court did not interfere with the conviction of the accused under Section 354 and Section 509. However, the fine was enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- and the entire amount was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix.
Neither K P S Gill nor Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj was satisfied with the decision of the High Court. KPS Gill was not satisfied because he was convicted by the High Court. Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj was not satisfied because nominal punishment was awarded. Both appeals were clubbed together and decided.
Contentions & Judgement:
- It is clear that the behaviour of the accused on the date of the incident was not consistent with the high standard expected of a topranking police officer.
- The findings of the various courts is to the effect that the accused gently slapped on the posterior of the prosecutrix in the presence of some guests.
- The accused being a police officer of the highest rank should have been exceedingly careful and failure to do so and by touching the body of the complainant with culpable intention he committed the offence punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC.
- It is proved that the accused used criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant and that he knew fully well that gently slapping on the posterior of the prosecutrix in the presence of other guests would embarrass her.
- Knowledge can be attributed to the accused that he was fully aware that touching the body of the prosecutrix at that place and time would amount to outraging her modesty.
- Had it been without any culpable intention on the part of the accused, nobody would have taken notice of the incident. The prosecutrix made such a hue and cry immediately after the incident and the reaction of the prosecutrix is very much relevant to take note of the whole incident.
- The incedent happened in 1988. Despite the accused holding a high positition in the State Police, the various courts found him guilty of the offence punishable under section 354 and section 509 and that by itself is a setting a model for others and would enhance the faith in judicial system.
- Both appeals were dismissed. Neither punishment was enhanced, nor was conviction or order of amount to pay money changed. The accused had completed probation without any breach.
