New Delhi [India], March 10 : Observing that a man masturbating and sexually harassing a woman inside a Delhi Metro train is a serious matter and raises concerns about the safety of women in public transport, a Delhi court has upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of the Saket Courts dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted him under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court observed that incidents of such behaviour in public transport are disturbing and cannot be taken lightly, particularly when women depend on public transport for their daily travel.
"The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A IPC," the court said while dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of conviction dated May 24, 2025 and the order on sentence dated October 6, 2025, passed by the trial court.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place inside a Delhi Metro train running on the Yellow Line between Saket and INA metro stations. It was alleged that the accused exposed himself, masturbated in front of a woman passenger and also touched her inappropriately during the journey.
Following the complaint, an FIR was registered at the INA Metro Police Station under Sections 354 and 354A IPC.
The trial court had sentenced the convict to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 354 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 354A IPC, with both sentences directed to run concurrently.
During the hearing of the appeal, Advocate Anand Kumar Pandey appeared for the appellant, Additional Public Prosecutor Santosh Kumar represented the State, while Advocate Meghna Mukherjee appeared for the complainant.
After examining the trial court record and the evidence placed on record, the sessions court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor