What A Girl Chooses To Wear Is A Matter Of Her Personal Choice, No One Right To Dictate Her: Delhi High Court

"What a girl or woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal choice. Neither her neighbours, nor society, nor the accused, nor counsel appearing in a court of law has any right to dictate her clothing. It is simply none of their concern." Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment, held that a woman's choice of attire or lifestyle does not diminish her bodily autonomy, strongly deprecating attempts by the defense to invoke religion, local customs, and clothing choices to justify sexual harassment.

A bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that cross-examination cannot be permitted to become an instrument of moral policing or victim-shaming under the guise of testing credibility.

The case originated from an incident on July 17, 2013, when the prosecutrix, a 17-year-old minor, alleged that the sole accused, Sajid Ali, stalked her, passed sexually coloured remarks, and touched her cheeks without consent. The trial court had acquitted the accused of offences under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), citing various investigative lapses and giving credence to local complaints regarding the victim's attire. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State approached the High Court in appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court's order of acquittal was vitiated by perversity and manifest illegality in appreciating the evidence on record. The court was also called upon to determine whether the prosecution successfully established the minority of the prosecutrix to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act, and whether the victim's testimony regarding sexual harassment stood unblemished.

POCSO Act Acquittal Upheld Due To Defective Birth Proof

The high court noted that the prosecution relied heavily on a birth certificate to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident. However, the Sub-Registrar admitted that the birth was registered nearly 13 years after birth without any supporting SDM orders, and the relevant register contained no corresponding entry.

"Prosecution Failed To Prove Age"

The bench held that in the absence of a valid foundational entry in the official registers and lack of proper substantiation, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the minority of the prosecutrix. Consequently, the court affirmed the acquittal under the POCSO Act, holding that its stringent provisions could not be invoked.

Investigation Lapses Cannot Vitiate Credible Testimony

The trial court had discarded the prosecution case on various grounds, including minor discrepancies regarding the time of arrest and the failure of the investigating officer to probe counter-complaints filed by locals against the prosecutrix and her mother.

"Defect In Investigation Cannot Ground Acquittal"

Relying on precedents such as C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. and Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, the high court reiterated that a defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. The court must evaluate the core testimony dehors such lapses to discover the truth.

Counter-Complaints Made No Out Cognizable Offence

Examining the counter-complaints lodged by the local residents, the court observed that the sole grievance of the neighbours was that the victim and her mother lived without male members, wore western clothes, and allegedly corrupted young men. The bench emphasized that no provision of law makes these circumstances a cognizable offence warranting police action.

"No Right To Dictate Attire"

Strongly censuring the line of cross-examination adopted by the defense counsel—which probed the victim's clothing, religion, and moral character—the court held that such questions were entirely improper. The bench observed that a woman's attire can never serve as a justification or condonation for unlawful conduct directed against her.

"Advocates Must Not Humiliate Witnesses"

The court expressed deep anguish at the presiding judge remaining a silent spectator while the prosecutrix was subjected to regressive moral judgment in court. The bench underscored that cross-examination is not an unrestricted licence to insult, shame, or intimidate a witness under the guise of testing credibility.

Even A Woman Of Easy Virtue Is Protected By Law

Analyzing the ingredients of sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, the court held that the prosecutrix remained consistent throughout her First Information Statement, Section 164 statement, and deposition regarding the unwanted physical contact and stalking by the accused.

"Privacy And Autonomy Are Absolute"

The bench ruled that even assuming the victim was a woman of easy virtue—as insinuated by the defense—she remains fully entitled to bodily privacy and the protection of criminal law. No person has the right to violate her person or invade her privacy.

Final Order And Mandatory Sensitization Directions

The high court set aside the trial court's judgment of acquittal regarding the offence of sexual harassment. The bench convicted the respondent-accused under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC. Furthermore, the court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and to the Director of the Delhi Judicial Academy to conduct sensitization programmes for judicial officers regarding victim-shaming and trial decorum.

Date of Decision: 10 August 2026