The Calcutta High Court in the case Janak Ram v State observed and has held that referring to an unknown lady as ‘darling’ would be a criminal offence as stated under Section 354A and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC.
The single bench headed by Justice Jay Sengupta in the case observed and has upheld the conviction of the accused who had referred to a lady constable as ‘darling’ in an inebriated condition
The court stated while 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. Thus, using such expression to an unacquainted lady cannot but be an act intended to insult the modesty of the addressee.
The court stated that 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.
Therefore, the accused in the said 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?’
In the present case, the case was initiated under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, IPC, and Section 509 IPC for using a sexually coloured remark and outraging the modesty of a woman.
The Trial Court in the case had found the accused guilty and ordered them to undergo three months imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 500 each.
It has been argued by the prosecution that a police team had approached the concerned area for patrolling during the ethe eve of Durga Puja, upon receiving information that a person was creating a nuisance.
Therefore, the police took him to the police station, while some officers including the victim remained in the area.
It was also stated before the court that when the team was standing near a shop in the area, the accused asked the complainant-victim the sexually coloured question.
Further, it was argued that accused were arrested, and the trial began, ending in conviction and sentencing for the accused.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submitted before the court that 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 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC.
It was also argued before the court that there was a clash of ego between the parties, and there was a doubt whether such an incident had occurred at all.
The counsel submitted before the court that the area was dark and no independent witness was examined, leading to the trial court taking an exceedingly rigid stand.
Further, it was 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.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State argued before the court that the impugned orders of conviction were well reasoned and that there was no justification for the appellant to use such remarks.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that since the appellant had stopped after making the remark, and did not aggravate the situation, thus, the sentence imposed by the trial court could be relooked.
Accordingly, the court imposed the one-month sentence.
