119 Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a citation reported in AIR 1973 SC 2622 : 1973 Cr LJ 1783 ; 1992 Cr LJ 238 where it was held that “Damages of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence. The doctrine of reasonable doubt not to be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt” and (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161 where it was held that “Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the guideline, not a fetish and guilty men cannot get away with it because truth suffers from some infirmity when projected through some human resources”. Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code states Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment: 1. A man committing any of the following acts— i. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or ii. a demand or request for sexual favours; or iii. showing pornography against the will of a woman; or iv. making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. 2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (I) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (I) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (I) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. In this case this court finds that the accused Animesh Boxi had demanded some personal photoes of victim but she did not agree and then the accused used to tell her sentimental words and used to show her annoyance and as she used to love him and believed him and so she gave him personal moments pictures and after that the accused used to tell her to go for outing with him but she did not agree to this and then the accused told her that he would publish her personal private photoes in the social media and then she took some nude