Addressing Unknown Lady As 'Darling' Is Patently Offensive, Amounts To Using Sexually Coloured Remark: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair has recently held that referring to an unknown lady as "darling" would be a criminal offence under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta upheld the conviction of the accused who had referred to a lady constable as 'darling' in an inebriated condition. It said:

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 a sexually coloured remark. using such expression to an unacquainted lady cannot but be an act intended to insult the modesty of the addressee. At least as of now, the prevailing standards in our society are not such that a man on the street can gleefully be permitted to use such expression in respect of unsuspecting, unacquainted women.

The accused in this case had allegedly used 'evidently reprehensible sexist expression' towards the lady constable in an inebriated state by saying "Kya darling challan karne aai hay kya?"

As a result, a case was initiated under Section 354A IPC, and Section 509 IPC for using a sexually coloured remark and outraging the modesty of a woman. 

The trial court had found the accused guilty and ordered them to undergo three months imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 500 each.

The prosecution argued that a police team had approached the concerned area for patrolling during the eve of Durga Puja, upon receiving information that a person was creating a nuisance.

Upon apprehending the person, the police took him to the police station, while some officers including the victim remained in the area.

It was stated that when the team was standing near a shop in the area, the accused asked the complainant-victim the sexually coloured question.

Subsequently, it was argued that the accused were arrested, and the trial began, ending in conviction and sentencing for the accused.

Counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the time of the occurrence was kept blank and that an independent witness from the police party had deposed that the accused only jokingly made the remark, thereby excluding the application of Section 354A and 509.

It was argued that there was a clash of ego between the parties, and there was a doubt whether such an incident had occurred at all. Counsel submitted that the area was dark and no independent witness was examined, leading to the trial court taking an exceedingly rigid stand.

It was further submitted that the word used was not sexually coloured or lewd, but that it was a colloquial word commonly used in conversation as well as TV and films, not necessarily containing a sexual connotation. 

Further, it was stated that even if it was accepted that there was a sexually coloured remark, the same would not fall within the ambit of Section 509 IPC, since it was not made with the intention to outrage the modesty of the woman.

Counsel for the state argued that the impugned orders of conviction were well reasoned and that there was no justification for the appellant to use such remarks. 

Upon hearing the parties, the Court applied the tests contained within Section 354 and 509 IPC and held that the remark made by the accused would be an offence regardless of his allegedly inebriated state.

It was observed that the standards of society would not permit such an expression to be used against an unsuspecting and unacquainted woman and that even the police witnesses had not deposed in unison, with a witness stating that the remark was made jokingly, leading to the inference that the accused could have been framed.

It further stated that the remark being made jokingly would have no impact on the case, since the prosecution had established their case beyond reasonable doubt.

On the aspect of sentencing, the Court noted that since the appellant had stopped after making the remark, and did not aggravate the situation, the sentence imposed by the trial court could be relooked, and accordingly imposed a one-month sentence instead.

Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 60

Case: Janak Ram v State

Case No: CRR 29 of 2023

Click here to read order