The case concerns an incident that took place in July 2019 when the victim, then aged 17, was working at a cosmetology centre, where the man worked as the manager.

The prosecution allegation was that the appellant misused his position as Manager of the 2nd accused, who was running a Cosmetology centre and that he laid the victim forcefully on the treatment bed, removed her underwear and placed on her vagina a penis-like instrument that was inserted on a vibrating mode.

He also threatened the victim so as to prevent her from revealing the same to anyone.

Though she disclosed the same to the 2nd accused, he told her it was a joke.

The appellant raised many contentions, including delay of 2 years in lodging the FIR, lack of medical or scientific evidence.




It was also pointed out that the victim did not state to the police that the vibrator was pressed for some time.

Rejecting the contention of delay, the Court remarked that the same was explained by the victim, who being faced with threats, could only disclose it after the arrest of the 2nd accused in another case.

The Court remarked that the victim was subjected to ‘voir dire’ examination by the trial court which found her capable to give evidence.

It also found that the victim’s statement remained unshaken despite minor contradictions and that she had explained why she did not disclose about the pressing of vibrating for some time or the feeling of discomfort.

Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court’s judgment, the Court upheld both the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused.