In a case from Janakpuri, Delhi, Vikrant Grewal was convicted under Sections 506 (Part II) and 509 IPC based on a neighbour’s complaint that he verbally threatened and insulted her modesty. The accused claimed that the allegations were false and arose from a rent dispute. Despite several investigation lapses, the absence of eyewitnesses, and admitted personal tension between the parties, the court relied on the woman’s uncorroborated testimony and WhatsApp messages to convict.
Basic Facts of the Case
- The complainant lived on rent in the house of the accused’s uncle. The accused claimed he had gone to collect pending rent.
- She alleged that he threatened her with rape, murder, and hurled abusive language.
- FIR was filed on 06.06.2021. The accused was arrested and faced trial under Sections 506 and 509 IPC.
- He denied all allegations and said she filed the complaint to avoid rent payment.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation.
- Section 509 IPC – Word, gesture or act to insult modesty of a woman.
- Section 503 IPC – Defines criminal intimidation.
- Section 65B Indian Evidence Act – Electronic evidence requirements.
- Section 164 CrPC – Recording of complainant’s statement.
- Section 313 CrPC – Accused’s statement in defense.
Arguments by Both Sides
Prosecution:
- The complainant accused the man of repeatedly threatening her and sending vulgar messages.
- Claimed that her testimony and WhatsApp messages were enough to prove guilt.
Defense:
- Said the case was purely retaliatory — she filed the FIR after he asked for unpaid rent.
- Highlighted lack of proper investigation, absence of eyewitnesses, and procedural errors.
- Accused admitted to sending messages but said they were misunderstood and came out of frustration.
Court’s Observations:
- The court believed the woman’s statements to be honest, consistent, and credible.
- Ignored the defense’s argument about the rent dispute, calling it irrelevant to the nature of the threats.
- WhatsApp messages were accepted even without proper forensic verification because the accused admitted to sending them.
- Held that words like “r***i” and sexual threats directly insult a woman’s modesty and fulfill the legal requirement under Section 509 IPC.
Final Judgment:
The court convicted Vikrant Grewal under Sections 506 (Part II) and 509 IPC, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Comments from the author of this website
This judgment reflects a growing concern: a simple rent or neighborhood dispute — without physical harm, without witnesses, and without solid investigation — can now lead to a full-blown criminal conviction for a man.
The accused raised a clear and logical defense: he asked for overdue rent and was falsely implicated. Yet, the entire prosecution case rested solely on the complainant’s word and a few text messages. There was no proper verification of mobile records, no eyewitness testimony, no IMEI linking, no FSL report — basic legal checks that protect innocent people from wrongful punishment.
Shockingly, none of these missing elements mattered. The mere admission that he sent messages — without context, without clarity — was enough to convict him. His claim of frustration or provocation was ignored.
If men can be sent to jail purely based on verbal allegations made after a personal quarrel, then where is the line drawn? When courts begin to disregard investigation flaws and lean entirely on the “benefit of doubt” in favour of the accuser, the legal balance breaks.
Final Thoughts:
This case raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:
Are men presumed guilty the moment a complaint is filed — especially when the case involves a woman?
Justice must mean more than just believing one side. It must include thorough checks, neutral investigation, and equal protection for all citizens — regardless of gender. Personal disputes, especially over money or rent, should not be allowed to take the form of criminal harassment unless backed by strong, unbiased evidence.
Today, one man lost his reputation, freedom, and dignity — not because of proof, but because of perception. And tomorrow, it could be another. The legal system must reflect fairness, not fear.
Read Complete Judgement Here