Raj Kumar Jaiswal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 257 of 2023), Calcutta High Court, pronounced 30 September 2026, Justice Uday Kumar
Facts of the Case
This was a revision against concurrent convictions under Section 509 IPC. The Trial Court (ACMM-II, Calcutta) convicted the petitioner on 1 December 2021. The First Appellate Court dismissed his appeal on 9 January 2023.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was a neighbour of the complainant and her husband. On 10 March 2014, he allegedly hurled abuses and threats at the husband while intoxicated. The next day, the husband found his scooty’s handle broken, and the petitioner allegedly made an abusive phone call. He also allegedly went to the family’s business establishment and threatened the staff.
The charge under Section 509 rested on the evening of 11 March 2014 at about 21:45. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, again intoxicated, mocked the couple’s childless marriage and unzipped his pants. He allegedly made vulgar gestures and a sexually explicit remark to the complainant.
The Trial Court acquitted him under Section 506 but convicted him under Section 509, with six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. Four prosecution witnesses were examined. The defence examined none and took a plea of total denial.
The petitioner argued, among other things, that:
- The testimonies of the complainant and her husband had contradictions;
- Independent witnesses named in the charge sheet were not examined;
- The investigation was perfunctory (no site plan, no call records);
- No motive was shown.
What Did the Court Say?
The court dismissed the revision and affirmed the conviction and sentence. It took the five questions it had framed in turn.
On the offence itself
The court held that the explicit nature of the act established the ingredients of Section 509, and that intent could be inferred from conduct.
On the victim’s testimony
The court relied on the weight given to a complainant’s evidence in such cases.
“…the testimony of a victim of sexual harassment or incident of insult to modesty stands on a remarkably high pedestal.”
The husband’s account corroborated hers. Minor variations on collateral details did not erode the core of the narrative.
On investigation lapses
The court accepted that there were lapses, such as no formal site plan, no General Diary entries exhibited, and non-examination of a cited independent witness. It still held that they were not fatal.
“…a criminal trial is not a game of errors played between the prosecution and the defence…”
On motive
Proof of motive was held not to be essential in such cases.
“…proving a complex, premeditated motive is not a sine qua non.”
On revisional jurisdiction
The court reiterated that it does not sit as a second appellate court and interferes only where findings are perverse or based on no evidence. It found none. The petitioner was directed to surrender within four weeks.
Learnings for Organisations
While this is a criminal conviction, there is a lesson here for internal inquiries.
- A single credible, consistent account can carry a finding. The court gave great weight to the complainant’s consistent testimony, corroborated by her husband. Internal Committees should assess credibility and consistency, and corroboration where it exists.
- Imperfect process need not defeat a sound outcome, but do not rely on that. The court tolerated investigation gaps because the core evidence was strong. Organisations should not read this as permission for sloppy inquiries. Keep thorough records, document the inquiry steps, and preserve evidence such as messages, logs, and call records where relevant. A well-documented process protects the Internal Committee and the organisation.
- Absence of a prior relationship or motive is not a defence. Do not discount a complaint merely because there is no history of conflict between the parties.
- Sexually explicit remarks and gestures speak for themselves. The court said the conduct required “no complex psychological dissection”. Policies should make clear that explicit conduct and remarks are unacceptable regardless of claimed intent.
- Related misconduct in a pattern matters. The surrounding events (threats, intimidation, abusive calls) formed the backdrop. When a complaint arises, look at the wider pattern of behaviour, not just the single incident.