The Delhi High Court in the case observed and has mentioned looks and gait of a person without any specific reference to the dress or any body part of a person who would not be considered as sexually coloured remark.
The bench headed by Additional Sessions Judge Rajinder Singh of Patiala House Courts in the case observed while dismissing a petition filed by women against discharge of a man under section 509 (word, gesture or act which intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the Charges against two other men were framed under section 509, thus, they were being discharged under section 354A (sexual harassment).
However, the order was challenged passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, it has been prayed by the women that all the accused persons are to be put to trial for the offences punishable under section 354A or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the present case, it has not been addressed by the women any arguments despite various opportunities given by court, therefore, the sessions judge decided her revision petition on the basis of the original complaint and her statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court stated while perusing the documents and has alleged that the acts of the accused persons would not fall under section 354A (1)(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court with regards to the charge under section 509 against the accused who was completely discharged stated that the woman specifically mentioned that he was murmuring something but she did not stop there to hear it.
It has also been noted by the court that there being no specific mention of any alleged words attributable to the man or no specific allegations that has been made by him 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.
The court made it clear that there being no charge for the offence punishable under Section 354-A and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 id being made out against respondent no. 2. No charge for the offence is punishable as stated under Section 354-A is made out against respondent no. 3 and respondent no 4.
The post Mentioning Looks Of A Person Without Reference To Dress Or Any Body Part Not ‘Sexually Coloured Remark’: Delhi HC appeared first on The Daily Guardian.
