Mentioning Looks Of A Person Without Reference To Dress Or Any Body Part Not ‘Sexually Coloured Remark’: Delhi Court

Mentioning looks and gait of a person without any specific reference to the dress or any body part of a person would not be considered as sexually coloured remark, a Delhi Court has observed.

Additional Sessions Judge Rajinder Singh of Patiala House Courts made the observation while dismissing a woman’s plea against discharge of a man under section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code. Charges against two other men were framed under section 509, however, they were discharged under section 354A (sexual harassment).

Challenging the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, the woman prayed that all the accused persons be put to trial for the offences punishable under sections 354A or 509 of IPC.

As the woman did not address any arguments despite various opportunities given by court, the sessions judge decided her revision petition on the basis of the original complaint and her statement recorded under section 164 of CrPC.

The woman alleged that the three men made certain remarks on her looks, made “loose comments” on her and also used to stare her “with an evil eye.” One of the accused allegedly said "see how she is looking, she is looking good and she is bold".

Perusing the documents, the court said that the alleged acts of the accused persons would not fall under section 354A (1)(A) of IPC.

“There is prima-facie nothing in the said remarks to make such remarks sexually coloured. Mentioning the looks and gait of a person without any specific reference to the dress or any body part of a person would not be considered as sexually coloured remarks. In view of the above it is clear that no offence punishable under Section 354-A IPC is made out against all the respondents,” it said.

Regarding the charge under section 509 against the accused who was completely discharged, the court said that the woman specifically mentioned that he was murmuring something but she did not stop there to hear it.

It noted that there was no specific mention of any alleged words attributable to the man or no specific allegations that he made any sound or gesture or exhibiting any object intending it to be seen by the woman with intention to insult her modesty or intrude upon her privacy.

“In my considered opinion where the nature of alleged acts / transaction is such that the complainant / any other witness is in a position to mention the specific date, time and place of the incident, the complainant / witness must mention the specific date, time and place of the incident,” the court said while upholding the observation of MM that the allegations were vague and bald.

It thus dismissed the revision petition and ordered:

“In view of the above discussion, it is clear that no charge for the offence punishable under Section 354-A IPC and 509 IPC is made out against respondent no. 2. No charge for the offence punishable under Section 354-A is made out against respondent no. 3 & 4.”