The Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling where it refused leniency in sentencing three Delhi Police officials convicted of sexual offences, holding that their actions warranted a punitive approach given their positions of responsibility. The Court was adjudicating criminal appeals involving offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act. Emphasizing that public officials must be held to higher standards, the Court observed, "Such acts by police personnel towards women and minor children cannot be forgiven or overlooked."
The case arose from incidents reported by a woman who alleged persistent sexual harassment by her neighbours, all of whom were serving personnel in the Delhi Police. The complainant stated that the primary accused, Jaidev, regularly exposed himself to her and her minor niece in public view. His son, Suraj Bhan, and brother, Jagmal, also reportedly made explicit sexual remarks and vulgar gestures. Despite residing in the same neighbourhood, the harassment allegedly continued for years. The FIR was lodged in 2013, and the accused cooperated during the investigation.
The convicts filed affidavits pleading for leniency. Jaidev claimed to be suffering from mental disorders and submitted medical documents from IHBAS. He stated he was retired from the police, had no regular income, and had not reoffended in nine years. Jagmal, a serving constable, highlighted his role as the sole breadwinner, his health issues including a heart condition, and his clean past record. Suraj Bhan, a head constable, similarly claimed financial and familial responsibilities and a clean record since the FIR.
The State opposed the request for leniency, arguing that the convicts' conduct, despite being law enforcement officials, was reprehensible and did not warrant any benefit under probation laws. The complainant's husband also appeared, alleging that the persistent misconduct by the convicts had made it impossible for the family’s women to step out safely. He further claimed that the harassment continued beyond the original incident and that the convicts’ actions had adversely impacted his promotion in service.
The Court emphasized the principles of sentencing, referring to various Supreme Court judgments. It noted that punishment must balance reformative and deterrent objectives and must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Citing the accused’s positions as police officers, the Court held that a restorative approach would be inappropriate, "It is not a case where a restorative or rehabilitative approach would be justified while sentencing... the punitive approach must be adopted, which may send a signal to the society and act as a deterrent".
The Court found Jaidev’s conduct, exposing himself to women and a minor, particularly egregious. It also noted that all three convicts belonged to the same family, lived in the same neighbourhood, and committed the offences jointly. The repeated nature of their misconduct and its impact on the complainant’s family, especially their minor niece, ruled out any leniency.
The Court sentenced Jaidev to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, along with sentences for offences under Sections 294, 354-A, and 509 IPC. Jagmal and Suraj Bhan were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 354-A and 509 IPC. All sentences were to run concurrently. The convicts were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within five days, and the appeals were accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: State Govt of Nct of Delhi vs. Jaidev & Ors.
Case No.: CRL.A. 798/2025
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Picture Source :
