S.P.S. RATHORE versus C.B.I. & ANR.
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 335, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Body
(2016] 5 S.C.R. 335 
S.P.S. RATHORE 
v. 
C.B.I. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2126 of2010) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 
(V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.354 - Essential ingredients - Discussed - In the instant case, 
appellant-accused, a very senior police officer of ihe State molested 
minor girl - PW-13 witnessed that the victim was in the grip of 
appellant-accused who was holding one hand of victim in his hand 
and his other hand was around her waist and he was pulling her 
towards his chest so as to embrace her while the victim was trying 
to push him back with her free hand-PW-13 withstood her testfmony 
from beginning till the end and her deposition was found reliable 
and corroborative with other prosecution wit11esses - Both the courts 
below rightly convicted the appellant-accused uls.354 of the !PC -
Crime against wome11 - Outraging modesty of a woman. 
s.354 - Delay i11 presenting complaint of molestation - field: 
Jn the instant case, appellant-accused, was a very senior,police 
officer of the State - Victim was unmarried minor girl - In the normal 
course of hu111an conduct, this unmarried minor girl, would not like 
to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had u11dergone 
and felt terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to 11arrate it 
to her parents and others overpowered by a feeling of shame and 
her natural incli11ation would be to avoid talking about it to anyone, 
lest the family name and honour is brought into
controversy - Delay 
of 6 days ill presenting the complaint duly explained a11d, therefore, 
condonable. 
Criminal lmv: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Knowledge that the act amounts to committing an offence -
. G 
Held: If intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any 
offence, it has got to be proved like other ingredients for convicting 
a person - But, it is also equally true that those ingredients being 
state of 111i11d may 11ot be proved by direct evidence and may have to 
be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. 
H 
335
336 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
Evidence: 
Adverse inference against the prosecution - Held: Can be 
drawn only if it withholds certain evidence and not merely on account 
of its failure to obtain certain evidence. 
Handwriting expert -
Evidentiary value of -
Held: 
Uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely 
weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either 
for the conviction or for acquittal - The courts, should, therefore, 
be wary to give too much weight tq the evidence of handwriting 
expert - It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence 
- Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated 
either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. 
Sole eye witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: No particular 
number of witnesses is required for proving a certain fact - It is the 
quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters - Evidence 
is weighed and not counted - Evidence of even a single eye witness, 
truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for 
maintaining conviction - It is not necessary that all those persons 
who were present at the spot must be examined by the prosecution 
in order to prove the guilt of the accused. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In order to constitute the offence under Section 
354 of the IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is 
likely to be outraged is
sufficient without any deliberate intention 
of having such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract 
conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. The essential 
ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under: 
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman; (ii) that the 
accused must have used criminal force on her; and (iii) that the 
criminal force must have been used on the woman intending 
thereby to outrage her modesty. If intention or knowledge is one 
of the ingredients of any offence, it bas got to be proved like 
other ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally 
true that those ingredients being state of mind may not be proved 
by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending 
circumstances of a given case. The sequence of events in the 
instant case indicates that the appellant-accused had the requisite 
culpable intention. [Paras 22, 24] (354-F-H; 355-D]
S.P.S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
2. With regard to the delay of about 6 days in presenting 
the complaint to the SHO, the same has been duly explained. In 
a tradition-bound non-permissive society in India, it would be 
extremely reluctant to admit that any incident which is likely to 
reflect upon chastity of a woman had occurred, being conscious 
of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked 
down by the society. In the instant case, the victim not informing 
about the incident to the parents under the circumstances that 
the appellant-accused, who being a very senior police officer of 
the State, was reasonable and it would not have been an easy 
decision for her to speak out. After informing the incident to her 
parents, the follow up action was immediately taken by the 
residents and the fellow players and a Memorandum containing 
allegations against the appellant-accused was prepared and 
submitted before the then Secretary (Home). Therefore, giving 
a due consideration to the appellant-accused, once the victim 
and her family members got assurance of justice from the superior 
authorities, they lodged a formal complaint against the appellant-
accused. [Para 26) [355-G-H; 356-A, C-D] 
3. The appellant-accused contended that the signature of 
the victim on the Memorandum was forged though she signed 
the same in from of complainant and others. Acting on the 
evidence of any expert, it is usually to see if tha"t evidence is 
corroborated either by
clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. 
The sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally 
sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being 
of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the 
disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or 
proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record 
a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely 
on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare 
the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence 
produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting 
expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 
but that too is not conclusive. It is thus clear that uncorroborated 
evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of 
evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the 
conviction or for acquittal. [Paras 27, 30) (356-D-G; 358-C] 
337 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
338 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
4. With regard to the contention that non-examination of 
two important site witnesses viz., the ball picker and the Coach 
draws adverse inference against the prosecution, the High Court 
has rightly held that adverse inference against the prosecution 
can be drawn only if it withholds certain evidence and not merely 
on account of its failure to obtain certain evidence. Moreover, 
they were not in any way connected with the actual commission 
of offence and even in their absence, the commission of the 
offence of molestation by the appellant-accused stands well 
proved by the unimpeachable testimony of the eye witness (PW-
13) to the incident. [Para 321 [358-G-H; 359-AI 
5. No particular number of witnesses is required for proving 
a certain fact. Evidence of even a single eye witness, truthful, 
consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining 
conviction. It is not necessary that all those persons who were 
present at the spot must be examined by the prosecution in order 
to prove the guilt of the accused. PW-13 withstood her testimony 
from beginning till the end and her deposition was found reliable 
and corroborative with other prosecution witnesses and both the 
courts below were right in upholding the conviction of the 
appellant-accused under Section 354 of the IPC. [Paras 33, 34) 
(359-B, DJ 
6. With regard to sentence of the appellant-accused, certain 
mitigating factors pointed
out were - old age of the appellant-
accused, health ailments, responsibility of looking after the 
unmarried daughter suffering from congenital hem·t disease, past 
meritorious service and prolonged trial. Keeping in view these 
factors especially the old age and physical condition of the 
appellant-accused, the sentence of the appellant~accused 
is 
reduced to the period already undergone by him as a special case 
considering his very advanced age. [Para 351 [359-E-F] 
Vidyadharan vs. State of Kera/a (2004) 1 SCC 215:2003 
(5) Suppl. SCR 524; Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar 
(2006) 8 SCC 560 : 2006 (7) Suppl. SCRIO; Mobarik 
Ali Ahmed vs. The State. of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 
857:1958 SCR 328; Smt, Bhagwan Kaur vs. Shri 
Maharaj Krishan Sharma & Ors.(1973) 4 SCC 46 : 
1973 (2) SCR 702 - relied on.
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.8.1. & ANR. 
Case Law Reference 
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 524 
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 10 
1958 SCR 328 
19?~ (2) SCR 702 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para23 
Para 25 
Para28 
Para29 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2126 of2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2010 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1558 of 
339 
A 
B 
2010. 
c 
K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Dhananjay 
Ray, Mehul M. Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Raj iv Nanda, Ajay Sharma, 
B. V. Bairam Das, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Vikas Mehta, Ms. Anushree 
Menon, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. K. AGRAWAL, J. I.This appeal has been filed against the 
judgment and order dated 01.09.20 I 0 passed by the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1558 of 2010 
whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision· 
petition filed by the appellant herein. 
2. Brief facts: 
D 
E 
(a) SPS Rathore-the appellant-accused, a member of the prestigious 
service of the country, was on deputation with Bhakhra Beas 
F 
Management Board (BBMB), Chandigarh as Director (Vigilance & 
Security) at the relevant time. He also founded the Haryana Lawn 
Tennis Association (HLTA) in the year 1988. 
(b) The office of HLTA was established in the garage of House No. 
469, Sector 6, Panchkula, an under
construction building owned by the 
G 
appellant-accused which was divided into three portions wherein front 
portion was being used as the office ofHLTAand the other two portions 
were being utilized by T. Thomas and Kuldeep Singh, Coach and 
Manager respectively of the Association for residential purposes. HLTA 
enrolled several member players who were mostly nearby residents of 
Panchkula on payment of monthly subscription. 
H
340 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
(c) Ms. Ruchika (since deceased), daughter ofShri S.C. Girhotra and 
Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu, daughter of Shri Anand Prakash and Madhu 
Prakash (the complainant), both aged about 15 years, residents of 
Panchkula got themselves enrolled as members of the HLTA. Both of 
them were good friends and used to go together for practice at the 
Tennis court. The appellant-accused was also a frequent visitor to the 
said Tennis court. One day, when Ms. Ruchika informed the appellant-
accused about her plan to go abroad, the appellant-accused met her 
father-Shri S.C. Girhotra on 11.08.1990 in order to persuade him to not 
to send his daughter out of the country for specialized tennis coaching 
and promised that special coaching would be arranged for her at HLTA 
itself and also asked him to send Ruchika to his office on the very next 
day in connection with the same. Shri Girhotra informed the same to his 
daughter-Ruchika and asked her to meet the appellant-accused in his 
office on 12.08.1990. 
(d) On 12.08.1990, Ms. Ruchika visited the house of Ms. Aradhana and 
told her about the visit of the appellant-accused to her house and also 
that he had called her in his office. When both of them were practicing 
in the tennis court, Paltoo-the ball picker, informed Ms. Ruchika that the 
appellant-accused had called her in his office. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika 
along with Ms. Aradhana went to meet the appellant-accused who
was 
standing outside the office at that particular point of time. The appellant-
accused insisted them to come inside the office. On his insistence, both 
the girls went inside the office. The appellant-accused got fetched one 
chair which was occupied by Ms. Aradhana and Ms. Ruchika kept 
standing on the right side of Ms. Aradhana while the appellant-accused 
sat in his chair which was on the other side of the table. The appellant-
accused requested Ms. Aradhana to call for Mr. Thomas-the Coach. 
Accordingly, Ms. Aradhana went outside leaving behind the appellant-
accused and Ms. Ruchika in the office. Ms. Aradhana asked the person 
who fetched the chair for her in the office to inform the Coach to come 
to the office of the appellant-accused. However, the Coach refused to 
come. 
(e) Immediately thereafter, when Ms. Aradhana returned to the office, 
she witnessed that Ms. Ruchika was in the grip of the appellant-accused, 
who was holding one hand of Ruchika in his hand and his other hand 
was around her waist. The appellant-accused was pulling her towards 
his chest so as to embrace her and Ruchika was trying to push him back 
with her free hand.
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
(f) On seeing Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the appellant-accused got 
frightened and released Ms. Ruchika and fell on his chair. The appellant-
accused asked Ms. Aradhana to go out of his room again and personally 
bring the coach with her. The appellant-accused insisted Ruchika to 
stay in his room, but she somehow managed to escape. When Aradhana 
was about to go behind Ruchika, the appellant-accused told her "Ask 
her to cool down, I will do whatever she will say". After listening to this, 
Ms. Aradhana also ran behind Ms. Ruchika to enquire about the matter. 
Thereafter, Ruchika narrated the whole incident to her. After discussion, 
both the girls decided not to inform the same to their parents as the 
appellant-accused, being IG of Police, could involve or harass them and 
their parents. 
(g) On 14.08.1990, Ms. Ruchika along with Ms. Aradhana went to the 
lawn tennis court at about 4:30 p.m., instead of their usual timing, in 
order to avoid the appellant-accused, who used to visit the court in the 
evening. When both the girls were about to return, at about 6:30 p.m., 
Mr. Paltoo-the ball picker, came out of the court and told Ms. Ruchika 
that the appellant-accused had called her in his office. However, Ms. 
Ruchika refused to meet him and pointed out to Ms. Aradhana that 
since they had not informed their parents about the mis-behaviour of the 
appellant-accused on 12.08.1990, the appellant-accused was feeling
emboldened and had again called her to his office with a view to molest 
her. Thereafter, both of them decided to disclose the incident that took 
place on 12.08.1990 to their respective parents. Accordingly, Ruchika 
narrated the incident of her molestation at the hands of the appellant-
accused to her father, Shri S. C. Girhotra. Also, the parents of Ms. 
Aradhana were made aware of the entire incident. 
(h) On hearing this, Shri S.C. Girhotra, gathered the residents of the 
locality, who were mostly parents of trainee boys and girls, and they 
went to the HLTA office to meet the appellant-accused but they were 
informed that the appellant-accused had already left for Chandigarh. 
On 15.08.1990, a Memorandum/petition, duly signed by Ms. Ruchika, 
Ms. Aradhana, Mr. Anand Prakash and Ms. Madhu Prakash-father and 
mother of Ms. Aradhana, was presented to the then Secretary (Home), 
Haryana. Afterthe approval of the Home Minister, Shri R.R. Singh, the 
then DGP was directed to hold an inquiry into the allegations leveled 
against the appellant-accused in the Memorandum/petition. 
(i) After conducting the enquiry into the incident, Shri R.R. Singh 
341 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
342 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
concluded that the allegation of molestation is based on true facts and a 
cognizable case is made out against the appellant-accused under the 
provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the !PC') and 
forwarded his enquiry report dated 03.09.1990 to the Secretary (Home), 
Government of Haryana. 
U) During investigation it was also revealed that after the incident of 
molestation, Ms. Ruchika confined herself in her house. Later, on 
28.12.1993, she committed suicide by consuming poison and died on 
29.12.1993. 
(k) The enquiry report by Shri R.R. Singh was examined by the Legal 
Division of the Government of Haryana in 1990 and 1992 which also 
recommended for registration of a case against the appellant-accused. 
Madhu Prakash-the complainant/Respondent No. 2 herein requested 
several authorities in the Government of Haryana for registration of a 
case but no action was taken on which she filed a Criminal Writ Petition 
being No. 1694 of 1997 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
The High Court, vide order dated 21.08.1998, issued direction to the 
Superintendent of Police, Panchkula that after registration of the case, 
the investigation shall be handed over to the Central Bureau oflnvestigation 
(CBI) and the same shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank 
of DIG. This Court, by its order dated 14.12.1999, upheld the order of 
the High Court dated 21.08.1998 which culminated
into registration of a 
First Information Report (FIR) being No. 516 of 1999 under Sections 
354 and 509 of the !PC at PS Panchkula, Haryana against the appellant-
accused. 
(I) The CBI filed charge-sheet dated 16.11.2000 before the Court of 
Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ambala under Section 354 of the IPC. 
A petition under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
(in short 'the Code') was filed by the CBI for condoning the delay in 
filing the charge sheet and for taking cognizance which was allowed by 
the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated 05.12.2000. 
Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2000, the appellant-accused 
preferred Writ Petition (C~iminal) being No. 46381 of2000 before the 
High Court challenging the condonation of delay. The High Court, by its 
order dated 18.04.200 I dismissed the petition with a direction to the trial 
court to dispose of the case preferably within six months. 
(m) Further, a petition was filed for addition of Section 306 IPC in the 
charge sheet which was allowed by an order of the Trial Court dated
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
23. I 0.200 I. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23 .I 0.200 I, the appellant-
accused preferred Criminal Misc. Petition being No. 44607-M/201 I 
before the High Court. The High Court, by its order dated 12.02.2002, 
set aside the order dated 23. I 0.200 I passed by the Trial Court. In appeal, 
this Court also upheld the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the High 
Court. 
(n) The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, by its judgment 
and order dated 21.12.2009 in Challan No. 3/17-11-2000, 12 T/10.04.2006 
RBTI 91/17-11-2009, held the appellant-accused guilty of offence under 
Section 354 of the !PC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment 
(RI) for six months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Being aggrieved by 
the judgment and order dated 21.12.2009, the appellant-accused preferred 
Criminal Appeal being No. 5 of 12.01.20 I 0 before the Court of Additional 
Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The CBI and Madhu Prakash-Respondent 
No. 2 herein also preferred Criminal Appeal being Nos. 26of12.01.20 I 0 
and 22 of05.02.20 I 0 respectively, before the Court for enhancement of 
sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by his order 
dated 25.05.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-accused 
while allowing the appeals filed by the CBI and Madhu Prakash for 
inadequacy of the sentence and for enhancement of sentence of 
imprisonment and the appellant-accused was awarded with rigorous
imprisonment for 1 Yi years (one and a halt) for committing offence 
under Section 354 of the !PC. The sentence of fine remained unchanged. 
(o) Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 25.05.2010, the 
appellant-accused preferred Criminal Revision being No. 1558 of2010 
before the High Court. The High Court, by its order dated 01.09.2010, 
dismissed the revision filed by the appellant-accused. 
(p) Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant-accused has 
preferred this petition by way of special leave before this Court. This 
Court, by its order dated 11 .11.2010, has allowed the petition filed by the 
appellant-accused for bail. 
3. Heard Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the 
appellant-accused and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel 
for the CBI and Shri Vikas Mehta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 
Rival contentions: 
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused contended 
343 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
344 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
that given the situation of the HLTA make shift office in a garage at the 
relevant point of time along with the presence of a number of people 
including labourers, it would be impossible to even try for such an act, 
knowing well that the act can be seen by others. Learned senior counsel 
further contended that the prosecution story is absolutely false and 
frivolous and the appellant-accused has been framed in the present case 
by the complainant party and the high level officers of the State with an 
ulterior motive. The appellant-accused neither visited the house of Shri 
S.C. Girhotra nor asked for a meeting with Ruchika on 12.08.1990 in 
HLTA office. It was further argued that the Memorandum/petition has 
been drafted after prolonged consideration and deliberation by several 
interested persons including some senior police officers of the State of 
Haryana. The name of the players who were allegedly accompanying 
Ms. Ruchika at the relevant time has not been mentioned in the 
Memorandum intentionally and later on Ms. Aradhana has been planted 
as 'Sathi Khiladi'. It was contended that the words 'Sathi Khiladi' have 
been mentioned in the Memorandum for the purpose of introducing an 
eye witness of choice. Learned senior counsel further contended that 
the signature of Ms. Ruchika on the alleged Memorandum is false and 
forged and on this ground, the document cannot be relied upon. This 
document does
not disclose the details of the incident and merely suggests 
that the appellant-accused misbehaved with Ms. Ruchika which does 
not attract Section 354 of the IPC. 
5. Learned senior counsel further contended that no complaint 
was filed by Ms. Ruchika or her father Shri S.C. Girhotra or Shri Ashu 
- elder brother of Ms. Ruchika or Mrs. Madhu Prakash (PW-2) or Sh. 
Anand Prakash (PW-I) or by Ms. Aradhana (PW-13) in the police station. 
Even after 14.08.1990, when Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana allegedly 
informed their parents, none of them approached the police to get the 
FIR registered. The police post, Sector 6, Panchkula is at a distance of 
300 yards only from the tennis court. It is situated very near to the 
house of Shri S.C. Girhotra also. In thiS way undue and unexplained 
delay resulted in manipulations and proper version could not be put forth 
before the court. 
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused further 
contended that the inquiry conducted by Shri R.R. Singh was without 
jurisdiction as the appellant-accused, at the relevant point of time, was 
on deputation with the BBMB and was not under the administrative
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.l. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
control of the Government of Haryana. He further contended that the 
IAS lobby in the Government of Haryana was entirely against the 
appellant-accused and it had colluded with Shri Anand Prakash (PW-1) 
and others against the appellant-accused. He further pointed out the 
reason that there was rivalry between the two tennis associations, one 
headed by the appellant-accused and one formed later on by the IAS 
group with Shri J .K. Duggal, Secretary (Home) as its President with the 
patronage of Shri B.S. Ojha. It was further contended from the side of 
the appellant-accused that before forming the Haryana Tennis Association 
(HTA), the IAS lobby pressurized the appellant-accused to step down 
from the Presidentship of HLTA in favour of Shri B.S. Ojha to which 
the appellant-accused refused which annoyed Shri B.S. Ojha, who had 
strong reasons for ordering the enquiry by Shri R.R. Singh and police 
officers .working under him had organized the drafting of the said 
Memorandum against the appellant-accused. The enquiry conducted 
by Shri R.R. Singh cannot be relied upon because no enquiry could be 
marked to him and also he has not held the enquiry in proper manner. It 
was further submitted by learned senior counsel that the media has played 
a negative role in the present case and published the selective news 
items only in collusion with the complainant party. The material witnesses 
like ball picker - Paltoo and
Coach - K.T. Thomas, who were allegedly 
present at the place of alleged incident, have not been examined by the 
prosecution. Further, the witnesses have made a lot of improvements 
and there are other discrepancies also in the statements of witnesses 
and therefore, the same could not have been relied upon by the courts 
below. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the case of the 
prosecution is false and frivolous, the net result of which is that the 
prosecution has failed to prove its case and the appellant-accused is 
entitled to be acquitted. 
7. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the CBI submitted that 
the occurrence is well proved by the unimpeachable testimony of Ms. 
Aradhana (PW-13). The eye witness stood with her testimony till end 
and therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the appellant-accused 
with regard to the above evidence has no relevance or substance. On a 
careful examination of the statement of PW-13, it can be very easy to 
arrive at the conclusion that there was every possibility that Ms. Ruchika 
could have been embraced by the appellant-accused in the manner that 
the eye-witness eventually described in her deposition before the trial 
court. Even Shri S.C. Girhotra- father of Ms. Ruchika has categorically 
345 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
346 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
deposed that the appellant-accused met him and requested him not to 
send his daughter abroad and also insisted to meet her in his office on 
12.08.1990 which gets corroboration from the statement of PW-13 that 
both the girls went to meet the appellant-accused at his office at HLTA. 
8. \\'ith regard to the claim of signature on the Memorandum as 
well as on the application given to the SHO, learned senior counsel for 
the CBI submitted that as far as the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the 
document are concerned, Ms. Ruchika has signed the alleged 
Memorandum in the presence of others and the same is established by 
the witnesses like Ms. Aradhana, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Sh. Anand 
Prakash in whose presence she signed the documents, which is a direct 
evidence. The evidence of expert witness cannot be considered 
conclusive proof of the charge and it requires independent and reliable 
evidence for its corroboration. She further submitted that Ms. Ruchika 
was the best person to depose about the genuineness of her signatures, 
but as she is no more, therefore, she could not appear in the witness box 
to depose about the genuineness of her signature on the alleged 
Memorandum. In her absence, the persons, in whose presence, she signed 
the document are the best witnesses to prove the genuineness of the 
signature of the victim. The strong direct evidence on record cannot be 
rebutted by weak type of evidence
of hand writing expert upon which 
reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant-
accused. 
9. With regard to the contention urged by the appellant-accused 
that Ms. Aradhana was the 'Sathi Khiladi' as mentioned in the 
Memorandum, on the basis of which FIR got registered, was manipulated, 
learned senior counsel submitted that a perusal of the contents of the 
Memorandum reveals that it merely gives a sequence of events which 
had happened from the very beginning and no manipulation appears to 
be made out. Merely on the ground that Shri C.P. Bansal, the then DIG 
and Shri Sham Lal Goyal, the then DSP were present on the spot, it 
cannot be said that they actively participated in its drafting and certain 
unnecessary and unwarranted facts were added to it. If experienced 
police officers would have participated in its drafting then it should have 
been in the form of FIR and the evidence must have been specifically 
pointed out in it. But the language of the Memorandum is like that the 
people have tried to show their resentment against the alleged act and 
demanded action against the accused. The reason for not mentioning
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
the name of Ms. Aradhana in the Memorandum is that she could have 
been harassed by the accused, who being a high ranking police officer. 
Because of this reason only, Ms. Ruchika or Ms. Aradhana or their 
parents did not approach the local police to lodge the FIR. They were 
fully aware that the appellant-accused, being a senior most police officer, 
holding a key post in the State, would definitely hamper the investigation 
or may not allow the police officers to cooperate with the complainant 
party. 
I 0. Learned senior counsel for the CBI further pointed out that 
Shri R.R. Singh was an authority legally competent to investigate the 
facts of the Memorandum and he was asked by the Government of 
Haryana to enquire into the facts given in the Memorandum and to submit 
a report to it. To make a person an authoritx legally competent to 
investigate, it is not necessary that he should be having authority which 
flows from a Statute. It is sufficient that such person was authorized 
legally by the State Government to investigate the fact. As such, Sh. 
R.R. Singh was competent authority to investigate the facts in question 
and the statements given by the witnesses before him are admissible in 
evidence irrespective oftime gap between the time when the incidents 
occurred and the date on which the statements were given. 
11. Learned senior counsel for the CBI finally submitted that the 
alleged rivalry between the HLTA
and HTA as well as the arguments 
advanced by learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused regarding 
the credibility of Shri Anand Prakash (PW-I) and Shri S.C. Girhotra 
(PW-15) have no bearing on the case at hand and the prosecution has 
made out a case for conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 
354 of the IPC. 
Discussion: 
12. It is not disputed that HLTA was floated in 1988-89 at 
Panchkula, Haryana. The appellant-accused was the President ofHLTA. 
Its office was established in the garage of an under construction house 
347 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
at Sector 6, Panchkula owned by the appellant-accused. It is also an 
G 
admitted fact that Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), Mr. Manish Arora (PW-3), 
Mr. Vipul Chanana (PW-4) and Ms. Ruchika (since deceased) were the 
memhers of the Association and used to play tennis in its court. It is the 
case of the prosecution that on 11.08.1990, the appellant-accused visited 
the house ofShri S.C. Girhotra (PW-15) and requested him not to send 
his daughter to Canada for coaching as he would arrange special coaching 
H
348 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
for her at HLTA itself. This fact has been well proved by Shri S.C. 
Girhotra (PW-15) in his statement. He has deposed before the trial Court 
that on 11.08.1990, the appellant-accused visited his house at about 12.00 
noon and had asked him not to send his daughter to Canada and that he 
would arrange special coaching for her. The appellant-accused further 
asked him to send his daughter on 12.08.1990, at about 12.00 noon, in his 
office to discuss about the training. At that particular point of time, Ms. 
Ruchika was not present at her house. On her return, PW-15 informed 
the same to her and also asked her to meet the appellant-accused on 
12.08.1990 in his office at 12.00 noon. This fact finds corroboration 
from the statement of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13). She has deposed that on 
12.08.1990, at about 11.00 a.m., Ms. Ruchika came to her house and 
she very excitedly told her that on 11.08.1990, the appellant-accused 
had visited her house and requested her father not to send her abroad 
and that he would arrange special coaching for her at HLTA itself as 
she was a promising player. She further informed Ms. Aradhana that 
the appellant-accused had asked her to meet him on 12.08.1990, at 12.00 
noon, at HLTA office. The very same fact finds place in the Memorandum 
also which was signed by Ms. Ruchika along with others. The evidence 
of PW-15 corroborates with the evidence of PW-13 in order to 
substantiate
the fact that the appellant-accused visited the house ofShri 
S.C. Girhotra on 11.08.1990 and asked him to send Ms. Ruchika to his 
office on 12.08.1990, at 12.00 noon. 
13. Ms. Ruchika (since deceased) and Ms. Aradhana went to 
play at lawn tennis court on 12.08.1990 and while they were playing Sh. 
Paltoo-the ball picker came there and told Ms. Ruchika that the appellant-
accused had called her to his office at 12.00 noon. Accordingly, Ms. 
Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana went to his office. The appellant-accused 
asked Ms. Aradhana to fetch the coach-Shri T. Thomas. While Ms. 
Aradhana had left the place, the appellant-accused molested/outraged 
the modesty of Ms. Ruchika. When Ms. Aradhana returned to the 
office, she witnessed the appellant-accused molesting Ms. Ruchika. Ms. 
Aradhana, in her statement, has categorically deposed that on that day 
when both of them i.e., Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana were playing 
tennis, Shri Paltoo, the ball picker, came and informed Ms. Ruchika that 
the appellant-accused had called her in HLTA office. They saw that the 
appellant-accused was standing outside his office. On seeing them, the 
appellant-accused asked them to come to his office. Though Ms. Ruchika 
requested the appellant~accused to talk to her outside the office, but he
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
349 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
insisted them to come to his office. On his insistence, they followed him 
A 
towards his office. On being asked by the appellant-accused, a chair 
was brought on which Ms.Aradhana(PW-13) sat down while Ruchika 
remained standing on her right side. Immediately thereafter, the appellant-
accused asked Ms. Aradhana to fetch the coach-Mr. T. Thomas. When 
she went outside to call the coach, she found him standing at a distance 
on the other side of the house across the road. She asked the ball picker-
Paltoo to go and fetch the coach. Mr. Thomas, on being informed about 
the same by Mr. Paltoo, waved his hand towards Ms. Aradhana expressing 
his inability to come at that moment. Thereafter, Ms. Aradhana returned 
and when she entered the office, she saw that the appellant-accused 
was holding one hand of Ms. Ruchika and his other hand was around 
her waist. Ms. Ruchika was trying hard to get herself released by pushing 
him away with her other hand. On seeing Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the 
appellant-accused became nervous and released Ms. Ruchika and fell 
down on his chair. When she informed the appellant-accused that coach 
has refused to come to his office, the appellant-accused rudely ordered 
her to go again and call the coach personally. In the meantime, Ms. 
Ruchika came to her side and went out of the office. When PW-13 was 
trying to follow her, the appellant-accused told her "ask her to cool down, 
I will do
whatever she will say". Thereafter, PW-13 followed Ms. 
Ruchika and when she reached near her, Ruchika started weeping loudly. 
When she asked Ms. Ruchika as to what had happened, she narrated 
that as soon as she left to fetch the coach, the appellant-accused caught 
hold of her hand which she got released with great difficulty, but he 
again caught hold of her hand and with his other hand the appellant-
accused caught hold of her waist and dragged her towards him and 
embraced her. She further told her that in the meantime when PW-13 
reached there, he got scared and immediately released her. After 
discussion as to whether the incident be disclosed to their parents or not, 
both of them decided not to inform their parents about the incident as the 
appellant-accused, being a high ranking police officer, could harm their 
families. The molestation of Ms. Ruchika, at the hands of the appellant-
accused is very well proved from the deposition of PW-13. There was 
no reason for Ms. Aradhana (PW-13) to depose falsely. In fact, she 
witnessed the actual act of molestation of Ms. Ruchika at the hands of 
the appellant-accused. Further, the fact regarding molestation of Ms. 
Ruchika by the appellant-accused has been stated on oath by Shri Anand 
Prakash (PW-1), Mrs. Madhu Prakash (PW-2), Mr. Manish Arora 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
(PW-3), Mr. Vipul Chanan (PW-4) and Shri S.C. Girhotra (PW-15). 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
There is no reason as to why PW-13 and other aforementioned prosecution 
witnesses would falsely implicate the appellant-accused in the case. 
14. Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana visited the lawn tennis court 
on 14.08.1990, at 4:30 p.m., instead of their usual timing deliberately in 
order to avoid confrontation with the appellant-accused, who usually 
used to visit the court in the evening daily. At about 6.30 p.m., when 
they were about to return after practice, Shri Paltoo - the ball picker, 
came over the lawn tennis court and told Ms. Ruchika that the appellant-
accused had called her in his office immediately. However, Ms. Ruchika 
refused to go there and told Ms. Aradhana that since they had not 
informed about the incident which took place on 12.08.1990 to their 
parents that has emboldened the appellant-accused. Thereupon, they 
decided to inform aboutthe overt act of the appellant-accused to their 
parents. They went to the house of Ms. Ruchika where they met Shri 
S.C. Girhotra - father of Ms. Ruchika. Ms. Ruchika started narrating 
the incident of molestation to her father, however, she could not narrate 
the entire incident and broke down, whereupon her father told Ms. 
Aradhana to take Ms. Ruchika to her mother. They went to the house 
of Ms. Aradhana where Mrs. Madhu Prakash (PW-2) and Shri Anand 
Prakash (PW-I) were present. Ms.
Ruchika disclosed the entire incident 
to PW-2, who further informed her husband about the said incident. 
Thereafter, Ms. Ruchika, Ms. Aradhana, Shri Anand Prakash, Mrs. Madhu 
Prakash and Shri S.C. Girhotra and other persons went to HLTA court 
to meet the appellant-accused wherefrom they came to know that the 
appellant-accused had already left for Chandigarh. 
IS. On 15.08.1990, a number of persons, who were mostly players 
and their parents, gathered at the residence of Shri Anand Prakash. 
They decided that the incident should be brought to the notice of higher 
authorities including the Chief Minister of Haryana. Accordingly, a 
Memorandum was prepared. A number of copies of this Memorandum 
were prepared for being handed over to different authorities. This 
Memorandum was signed by Sh. Anand Prakash, Ms. Ruchika, Mrs. 
Madhu Prakash, Meenu, Sangeet, Aradhana, Anirudh, Beenu, Naresh 
Mittal, C.S. Gupta and Shri I.D. Mittal. The witnesses who were 
examined in the court identified their signatures as well as signatures of 
Ms. Ruchika on the Memorandum. The appellant-accused disputed the 
genuineness of signatures of Ms. Ruchika. He tried to substantiate his
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
contention by examining the hand writing expert. The contention of the 
appellant-accused is not tenable as the witnesses who have been 
examined by the prosecution and in whose presence the Memorandum 
was signed, have identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika. Shri Anand 
Prakash has proved the preparation of Memorandum. In this regard, 
the law is very clear that a fact.should be proved by the best available 
evidence. The witnesses had identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika 
on the Memorandum, therefore, the evidence of the hand writing expert 
cannot considered to be safe and it requires corroboration from 
independent witnesses. As already stated, the signatures of Ms. Ruchika 
have been proved by the witnesses who have signed the Memorandum 
and are direct, primary and best available evidence in the case and, 
therefore, the same can be relied upon. 
16. On 16.08.1990, the Memorandum was given to Shri J .K. Duggal 
(PW-12), the then Secretary (Home) who assured them that the matter 
would be enquired igto. He asked the persons who had presented the 
Memorandum to him to reach the lawn tennis court where Shri S.K. 
Joshi, the then SDM would also be reaching. After reaching there, they 
found a Notice dated 15.08.1990 declaring suspension of Ms. Ruchika 
with effect from 13.08.1990 displayed on the Notice Board. ShriS.K. 
Joshi, the then SOM also reached there. Shri Kuldeep Singh-the Manager 
and Shri T.
Thomas-the Coach were also present there. On being asked, 
Shri Kuldeep Singh, in the presence of witnesses, i_nformed that he has 
affixed the notice on the directions of the appellant"accused. He further 
disclosed that Ms. Ruchika has committed no act of indiscipline. On, 
being asked, Shri Kuldeep Singh gave the same facts in writing on the 
Notice. This fact was confirmed by the Coach - Shri T. Thomas and he 
signed at a point where the following words were written "I support the 
contents of the endorsement of Sh. Kuldeep Singh". He was also asked 
to give it in writing, if any act of indiscipline has been committed by Ms. 
Ruchika. On this, he made an endorsement to the effect that to the best 
of his knowledge Ms. Ruchika has not done any act of misbehavior or 
indiscipline in the HLTA tennis court. This notice was produced by Shri 
Anand Prakash at the time of his deposition before the trial court. It has 
also come in his evidence that said notice was given to him by the SOM 
immediately after making endorsement. These facts have been proved 
by PW-I, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-13. The presence ofShri 
Kuldeep Singh and Shri T. Thomas on that day and time has already 
been proved by the then SHO, Panchkula who was on patrolling duty on 
351 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
352 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
that date and reached the spot on receiving verbal transmission message 
about the incident. 
17. Shri R.R. Singh was directed by the Chief Minister and Home 
Minister of the State ofHaryana to conduct an enquiry into the allegations 
contained in the Memorandum. In compliance of the said order, Shri 
R.R. Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses including Mrs. 
Madhu Prakash (PW-2), Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), Shri S.C. Girhotra 
(PW-15) and Shri Anil Kumar. The statements of Ms. Ruchika and Shri 
Anand Prakash (PW- I) were also recorded. After the enquiry, he 
recommended that a case under the relevant provisions of the IPC be 
got registered. Despite the fact that Shri R.R. Singh had recommended 
the registration of a case against the appellant-accused, no action was 
taken by the State Government. It is most surprising that no value was 
attached to the said Report and to the recommendations made by such a 
high ranking police officer i.e., Director General of Police; Haryana. 
18. lt has also been argued from the side of the appellant-accused 
that Shri B.S. Ojha and Shri J.K. Duggal were having great grudge 
against him. It was further contended that the relations between the 
appellant-accused and Shri R.R. Singh were strained since 1976. But 
this suggestion was denied by the witness while appearing in the court. 
Learned senior counsel for the CBI has strenuously submitted that a 
proper report was
given by Shri R.R. Singh and it is a matter of common 
experience that no girl or father would make a false complaint of such 
heinous nature even against their enemy. 
19. Shri R.R. Singh had conducted the enquiry under the orders 
of the Government of Haryana, therefore, he was competent to 
investigate/enquire into the allegations made in the Memorandum. As 
such, all the statements recorded by him are admissible under Section 
157 of the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration. Shri 
J.K. Duggal and Shri B.S. Ojha are independent witnesses and they 
have no grudge against the appellant-accused as alleged by the learned 
senior counsel. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed to be 
correct that there was some dispute over the control of HLTA between 
them, it was not such a big issue which would have induced them to 
implicate the appellant-accused falsely. There is no evidence on record 
to substantiate the allegations that these two officers were in any way 
instrumental in preparation of Memorandum or implicating the appellant-
accused in the case. There is also no evidence on record to suggest any
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.l. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
nexus of these two officers with Shri Anand Prakash (PW-I) and Shri 
S.C. Girhotra (PW-15). There is no evidence to suggest any enmity 
between the appellant-accused and PW- I to implicate him in a fabricated 
case. It is further the case of the appellant-accused that statement 
recorded by Shri R.R. Singh cannot be used by the prosecution for the 
purpose of corroboration under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. The 
contention of the accused is not tenable at all. This section envisages 
two categories of statements of witnesses, which can be used for 
corroboration. First is the statement made by a witness to any person at 
or about the time when the incident took place. The second is the 
statement made by him to any authority legally competent to investigate 
the matter. Such statements gain admissibility, no matter that it was 
made long after the incident. But if the statement was made to non-
authority, it loses its probative value due to lapse of time. Shri R.R. Singh 
was an authority legally competent to investigate the incident. He was 
asked by the State Government to enquire into the facts given in the 
Memorandum and report thereon. To make a person an authority legally 
competent to investigate, it is not necessary that he should be having 
authority which flows from a Statute. It is sufficient that such person 
was authorized legally by the State Government to investigate the matter. 
Hence, we are of the
view that Shri R.R. Singh was authority competent 
to investigate the fact in question and the statements given by the 
witnesses before him are admissible in evidence· irrespective of time 
gap between the time when incidents occurred and the date on which 
the statements were given. Shri R.R. Singh was in fact competent to 
investigate the matter since the enquiry conducted by him was merely a 
fact finding enquiry. The undisputed fact is that nothing happened even 
after the submission of the report by Shri R.R. Singh because no action 
was taken by the State Government on the same. Further, all the witnesses 
including Sh. J .K. Duggal and Shri B.S. Ojha examined by the prosecution 
are the independent witnesses and the enmity, as suggested by the 
appellant-accused, is not proved, as discussed above. 
20. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused has 
contended that in the present fact situation, how a person can embrace 
other while standing behind the table and then suddenly fall into his chair 
on the entry of PW-13. In this regard, we have carefully considered the 
evidence given by the prosecution, especially the evidence of PW-13. 
She, being the sole witness to prove the actus reus, her evidence should 
receive some careful consideration and we do not find any reason for 
353 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
354 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
her to depose falsely against the appellant-accused. 
There is, thus, 
every possibility that Ms. Ruchika could have been embraced by the 
appellant in the manner as described by PW-13. 
• 
21. The High Court, on proper re-appreciation of the entire 
evidence, came to the right conclusion that the prosecution was successful 
in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the offence punishable 
under Section 354 of the IPC was made out. There is devastating 
increase in cases relating.Jo crime against women in the world and our 
country is also no exception to it. Although the statutory provisions provide 
strict penal action against such offenders, it is for the courts to ultimately 
decide whether such incident has occurred or not. The courts should be 
more cautious in appreciating the evidence and the accused should not 
be left scot-free merely on flimsy grounds. By the consistent evidence 
of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable 
doubt the offence committed by the appellant under Section 354 of the 
IPC. A charge under Section 354 of the IPC is one which is very easy 
to make and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that on account of alleged 
enmity between the appellant and Shri Duggal and Shri Ojha, he was 
falsely implicated. It would, however, be unusual in a conservative society 
that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance. When a 
plea is taken by the
appellant-accused that he has been falsely implicated, 
courts have a _duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide 
the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations made against him. In 
the instant case, both the trial court and the High Court have done that. 
There is no scope for taking a different view from the view already 
been taken by the courts below. The occurrence of the overt act is well 
proved by the unimpeachable testimony of the eye-witness - Ms. 
Aradhana (PW-13). 
22. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of the 
IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged 
is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone 
for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply 
to all cases. A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while 
dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients 
of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under: 
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman; 
. (ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and 
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman 
intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
23. This Court, in Vidyadliaran vs. State of Kera/a (2004) 1 
sec 215, held as under 
. 
"10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable 
under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person 
assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, ifhe knows that 
by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. 
Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and 
cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of 
intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various 
circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is 
alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and 
indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her 
testimony should receive the same weight ..... " 
24. It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one 
of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other 
ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally true that those 
ingredients being state of mind may not be proved by direct evidence 
and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a 
given case. The sequence of events which we have detailed earlier 
indicates that the appellant-accused had the requisite culpable intention. 
25. This Court, in Tarkesliwar Salru vs. State of Bilrar, (2006) 8 
sec 560, held as under:-
"39. So far as the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, 
intention to
outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge that 
the act of the accused would result in outraging her modesty is 
the gravamen of the offence. 
40. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable 
intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of 
the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. 
Modesty iS an attribute associated with female human beings as a 
class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex." 
26. With regard to the delay of about 6 days in presenting the 
complaint to the SHO, this Court is of the view that the same has been 
duly explained. In a tradition-bound non-permissive society in India, it 
would be extremely reluctant to admit that any incident which is likely to 
reflect upon chastity of a woman had occurred, being conscious of the 
danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the 
355 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
356 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
society. In the instant case, the victim-Ms. Ruchika not informing about 
the incident to the parents under the circumstances that the appellant-
accused; who being a very senior police officer of the State, was 
reasonable and it would not have been an easy decision for her to speak 
out. In the normal course of human conduct, this unmarried minor girl, 
would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she has 
undergone and felt terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to 
narrate it to her parents and others overpowered by a feeling of shame 
and her natural inclination would be to avoid talking about it to anyone, 
lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy. After 
informing the incident to her parents, the follow up action was immediately 
taken by the residents and the fellow players and a Memorandum 
containing allegations against the appellant-accused was prepared and 
submitted before the then Secretary (Home). Therefore, giving a due 
consideration to the appellant-accused, once the victim and her family 
members got assurance of justice from the superior authorities, they 
lodged a formal complaint against the appellant-accused. 
27. With regard to the contention ofleamed senior counsel for the 
appellant-accused that the signature of Ms. Ruchika on the Memorandum 
was forged though she signed the same in front of Shri Anand Prakash, 
Shri S.C. Girhotra, Ms.
Aradhana and Mrs. Madhu Prakash and they 
have admitted the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to 
handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. 
Acting on the evidence ofany expert, it is usually to see ifthat evidence 
is corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. The 
sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for 
recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or 
not. A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person 
with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not 
be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a 
certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court 
can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other 
evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting 
expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but 
that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena 
of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally 
sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a 
certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting 
expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
writing. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of 
substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see 
if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial 
evidence. 
28. In Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. Tile State of Bombay AIR 1957 
SC 857, this Court has held as under:-
"! I. .... Learned counsel objected to this approach on a question 
of proof. We are, however, unable to see any objection. The proof 
of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the 
document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The 
evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may 
consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document 
being written or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of 
the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the 
modes provided in Sections45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
It may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents 
of the document. This last mode of proof by the contents may be 
of considerable value where the disputed document purports to 
be a link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are 
proved to the satisfaction of the court. In such a situation the 
person who is the recipient of the document, be iteither a letter or 
a telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with 
reference to his prior knowledge of the
writing or the signature of 
the alleged sender limited though it may be, as also his knowledge 
of the subject matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to 
its authorship. In an appropriate case the court may also be in a 
position to judge whether the document constitutes a genuine link 
in the chain of correspondence and thus to determine its 
authorship. We are unable, therefore, to say that the approach 
adopted by the courts below in arriving at the conclusion that the 
letters are genuine is open to any serious legal objection. The 
question, if any, can only be as to the adequacy of the material on 
which the conclusion as to the genuineness of the letters is arrived 
at. That however is a matter which we cannot permit to be 
canvassed before us. 
29. In Smt. Bliagwan Kaur vs. Sllri Maharaj Krislian Sliarma 
And Otliers ( 1973) 4 SCC 46, this Court held as under:-
357 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"26. It is no doubt true that the prosecution led evidence of 
H
358 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
handwriting expert to show the similarity of handwriting between 
(PW I/ A) and other admitted writings of the deceased, but in this 
respect, we are of the opinion that in view of the main essential 
features of the case, not much value can be attached to the expert 
evidence. The evidence of a handwriting expert, uni ike that of a 
fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities 
have been quite often noticed The courts should, therefore, be 
wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting 
expert. In Sri Sri Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu 
Ganesh Prasad Bhagat this Court observed that conclusions 
based upon mere comparison of handwriting must at best be 
indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case." 
30. It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing 
expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not 
be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, 
therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting 
expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. 
Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated 
either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. 
31. It is the claim of learned senior counsel for the appellant-
accused that the present case is fabricated and a result of the rivalry 
between HLTA and
HTA. Further, Shri Anand Prakash has derived 
professional benefit from this exercise besides venting his longstanding 
grudge against the appellant-accused. It does not stand to logic that 
having regard to the Indian social set up, any father would let his 
daughter's honour and reputation be damaged merely because one of 
his associate has his own agenda against the appellant-accused. However, 
each case has to be determined on the touchstone of the factual matrix 
thereof. In the instant case, there is nothing on record on the basis of 
which it can be said that the tender age of the victim was exploited for 
the benefit of Shri Anand Prakash (PW-I) 
32. With regard to the contention of learned senior counsel that 
G 
non-exam_ination of two important site witnesses viz., Shri Paltoo-the 
ball picker and Shri T.Thomas-the Coach draws adverse inference against 
the prosecution, the High Court has rightly held that adverse inference 
against the prosecution can be drawn only if it withholds certain evidence 
and not merely on account of its failure to obtain certain evidence. We 
H 
are also of the opinion that they were not in any way connected with the 
,_
S. P. S. RATHORE v. C.B.I. & ANR. 
[R. K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
actual commission of offence and even in their absence, the commission 
of the offence of molestation by the appellant-accused stands well proved 
by the unimpeachable testimony of the eye witness (PW-13) to the 
incident. 
33. No particular number of witnesses is required for proving a 
certain fact. It is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that 
matters. Evidence is weighed and not counted. Evidence of even a 
single eye witness, truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient 
for maintaining conviction. It is not necessary that all those persons 
who were present at the spot must be examined by the prosecution in 
order to prove the guilt of the accused. Having examined all the witnesses, 
even if other persons present nearby not examined, the evidence of eye-
witness cannot be discarded. 
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that 
Ms. Aradhana (PW-13) withstood her testimony from beginning till the 
end and her deposition was found reliable and corroborative with other 
prosecution witnesses and both the courts below were right in upholding 
the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 354 of the IPC. 
35. With regard to sentence of the appellant-accused, learned 
senior counsel on his behalf has pointed out certain mitigating factors 
which are - old age of the appellant-accused, health ailments, 
responsibility of looking after the unmarried daughter
suffering from 
congenital heart disease, past meritorious service and prolonged trial. 
Keeping in view the aforementioned factors especially the old age and 
physical condition of the appellant-accused, we do not think it expedient 
to put him back in jail. While we uphold the findings as to the guilt of the 
appellant-accused, we are.of the opinion that the cause of justice would 
be best sub-served when the sentence of the appellant-accused would 
be altered to the period already undergone. We, therefore, reduce the 
sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him as a 
special case considering his very advanced age. 
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, we confirm the conviction 
of the appellant-accused under Section 354 of the IPC while modifying 
the sentence to the period already undergone. The appeal is disposed of 
with the above terms. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal disposed of. 
359 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H