Intoxication Of A Lady Does Not Give License To Her Male Friend To Take Undue Advantage Of Her Condition: Delhi Court

Intoxication of a lady does not give license to her male friend to take undue advantage of her condition, a Delhi Court has observed while upholding the conviction of a man for using criminal force by trying to kiss a woman and voluntarily causing hurt to her by slapping her.

Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Gupta of Saket Court upheld the conviction of the man under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

However, the court acquitted him for the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part (I) &(II) of the Code, observing that the prosecution miserably failed to prove ingredients of the offence against him.

The man had filed an appeal challenging the order passed by a Mahila Court convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 354, 323 and 506 Part- (I) &(II) of the Code. He also challenged the one year jail term awarded to him.

The Magistrate had, however, allowed his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail till filing of appeal, which was filed by him subsequently.

It was the convict’s case that the complainant woman was in a relationship with him and that their marriage could not take place due to opposition from her parents as they were from different religions.

His lawyer submitted that the woman contacted him a long time after her separation from her husband. He claimed that she filed the case after he simply demanded the money she borrowed from him.

The man also contended that there could not have been any conviction under Section 323 as the medical examination of the woman was not done. He alleged that the woman refused to undergo medical examination as she was drunk at the time of incident.

Rejecting the said contention, the court observed:

“…even if the medical examination of the complainant would have shown that she was drunk at that time, that in itself would not have been of any consequence as intoxication of a lady does not give license to her male friend to take undue advantage of her condition.”

The court observed that mere slap to a person is sufficient to make out a case for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt and that no medical examination can ordinarily show any proof thereof.

“Also, there is no law to the effect that an offence of simple hurt U/s 323 IPC cannot be proved in the absence of a medical examination of the victim especially when the allegations are pertaining to her having been slapped,” the court added.

The judge further said that there was nothing on record to suggest that it was the woman who was forcing the convict to meet her and to talk to her.

“Even if it is presumed that the complainant was more interested in meeting and talking to the appellant, that does not mean that the appellant could have taken the liberty of trying to kiss her and on her refusal/ disinterest in the same, could have slapped her,” the court said.

Regarding the offence of criminal intimidation which was invoked against the man for allegedly threatening the woman to throw acid on her face and also to disclose that she had physical relations with him to her family, the judge observed:

“This Court is unable to see as to how this can be termed as criminal intimidation because it is not clear as to what was the intention of the appellant in calling the mother of complainant.”

The court said that it was not clear as to how the threat by the man, to disturb the woman’s separated husband, could have caused any alarm to her and that her parents were already aware about their relationship before their marriage.

“Also, there is no threat extended by the appellant to her on that day to the effect that he will throw acid on her face. In these facts, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of offence U/s 506 Part (I)& (II) against the appellant. He is accordingly acquitted for the said offences,” the court said.

It added, “So, the conviction of appellant Sandeep Kumar for the offences U/s 354/323 IPC is upheld hereby and he is acquitted for the offences U/s 506 Part (I) & (II) IPC.”