Three Delhi men were recently convicted for offending the modesty of a bouncer at a West Delhi club in July 2016, considering that the victim’s testimony was of high quality and very detailed. The court then added that the victim’s mind was clearly “shocked and horrified by the brazen way she was harassed”. with swords, sticks and iron pipes as a result of a previous fight between two groups. During the assault, the prosecution said, the accused also outraged the modesty of the bouncer.
Significantly, while the court pulled up the police for the manner in which they conducted the investigation of the case, Principal and Sessional Judge Dharmesh Sharma added that “a mere flawed or apathetic investigation conducted by the investigator cannot be a single reason for throwing the entire criminal case.”
The main objective of the criminal justice system is to ensure justice for all parties involved: the accused, the complainant/victim, the company and the prosecution. The order says the only flaw in the investigation was that the IO had failed to interview the club owner and verify whether the CCTV cameras were working.
The defense in the case argued that none of the public witnesses had identified the accused and that the “real offender” and the police had carried out a “flawed investigation” – citing the missing CCTV footage. However, the court noted that the victim, in her testimony in court and in cross-examination described the assault she suffered and also said that she could identify the men by name and appearance. “It is very likely that the shock and horror of the brazen way she was harassed and assaulted by the accused had a strong impact on the mind of PW1 (victim), but in the end the truth prevailed and her testimony is of “exceptional quality,” the court noted, before convicting the accused under the relevant sections of the IPC.