The Calcutta High Court recently held that referring to an unknown woman as “darling” constitutes sexual harassment and is a punishable offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case pertains to an incident on October 21, 2015, when Janak Ram allegedly made an inappropriate remark at a woman constable — “Kya darling challan karne aai hay kya?” (Darling, have you come to collect a fine?) — during the festive season of Durga Puja.
Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented 11 witnesses, including several police officers who were present during the incident, providing a comprehensive account of the events leading to Ram’s arrest and subsequent legal proceedings.
The counsel for Ram contended that the words used were intended as a joke, as have been admitted by an independent witness, suggesting the incident did not warrant the application of sections 354-A(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC. It was also argued that, “The words used were not obscene, but at best, inappropriate,” and that the term “darling” is commonly used in Indian society and does not inherently carry sexual connotations. The defence suggested that cultural norms and contexts should be considered, and that there was no deliberate intention to insult the modesty of the female constable.
Despite Ram’s defence challenging the lack of independent witnesses and disputing the evidence of his intoxication, the court found the testimonies of the police personnel compelling. The Trial Court sentenced him to three months of imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently, along with a fine. The conviction was also upheld by the Appellate Court. In response, Ram appealed to the High Court, contesting the nature of his remarks and the severity of the sentence.
Taking into account the question of whether an offence under Section 354A IPC, dealing with Sexual Harassment, is made out. The court laid emphasis on Section 354A (1)(iv) which penalises sexually coloured remarks. Justice Jay Sengupta noted, “Addressing an unknown lady, whether a police constable or not, on the street by a man, drunken or nor, with the word “darling” is patently offensive and the word used essentially is a sexually coloured remark.”
The court also addressed the argument raised by the defence with regards the convict being intoxicated and said, “The defence alleges that there is no proof that the man was drunk.
If this was done in a sobre state, the gravity of the offence would perhaps be even more.”
The court on the charge under Section 509 IPC (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), ruled that the above mentioned provision addresses actions intended to insult a woman’s modesty, including words or gestures with a sexual orientation. The legal interpretation suggests that using derogatory terms towards an unfamiliar woman, irrespective of intent, is seen as an act meant to demean her modesty.
The High Court upheld the conviction. However, the sentence was thus reduced to one month of simple imprisonment for each offence.
Comments
0 comment