As per Section 354A(i) of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises sexually suggestive remarks, the Calcutta High Court ruled on Friday that calling an unidentified woman ‘darling’ is derogatory and constitutes a sexually suggestive statement. Judge Jay Sengupta, a single-judge sitting on the Port Blair bench, upheld the conviction of Janak Ram, the appellant/convict, who had asked a female police officer (the complainant) “kya darling, challan karne aayi hai kya?” (Hey darling, have you come to impose a fine?)” after being apprehended while intoxicated.
Referring to Section 354A, which outlaws disparaging a woman’s modesty, Justice Sengupta stated that using sexually suggestive language is prohibited. “Addressing an unknown lady, whether a police constable or not, on the street by a man, drunken or not, with the word ‘darling’ is patently offensive, and the word used is essentially a sexually coloured remark,” the judge ruled. The accused had argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the man’s intoxication, the court remarked.
In response to the claim, the Court stated, “If this was done in a sober state, the gravity of the offence would perhaps be even greater.” It also highlighted the fact that our society’s norms do not allow a man to freely express himself in such a way towards an unknowing and gullible woman on the street. According to the prosecution, a police squad that included the victim’s police constable and other law enforcement officers was travelling to Lall Tikrey on the eve of Durga Puja in order to keep order.
They learned that there was a problem in the region when they arrived at Webi Junction. When the police party arrived, they arrested the criminal and transported him to the police station, leaving the victim and the rest of the police party behind at the intersection.
They chose to go in front of a store under the street light because it was getting dark there. “Kya darling challan karne aai hay kya?” was the sexually suggestive question posed by the appellant, who was standing in front of the shop, to the complainant as they approached the street light.
In accordance with Sections 354A (1) (iv) and 509 (word, gesture, or act designed to offend the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Mayabunder Police Station filed a first information report (FIR) on this day. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class at North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder, found the appellant guilty of violating Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of the IPC. The court sentenced the appellant to three months of simple imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of ₹500 for each of the two offences. The decision was made on April 24, 2023.
On November 21, 2023, the Additional Sessions Judge for North and Middle Andaman dismissed his appeal against the same. Then, in opposition to the conviction and sentence, he filed the current revisional application with the High Court. After reviewing Sections 354A and 509, the Court concluded that it would be unlawful to refer to an unfamiliar woman as “darling” in accordance with both of these statutes.
“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 Supreme Court stated. It then stated that the prosecution had shown enough evidence to demonstrate that the victim had really addressed the female officer in the way that was claimed.
Crucially, the Court acknowledged that the witnesses to the incident were members of the police force and that neither a local nor an impartial witness could have bolstered the prosecution’s case. Nonetheless, the Court determined that the police officers’ testimony presented a strong case for the prosecution. “The non-availability of such an independent witness in the facts of the case was nothing abnormal and was also borne out from the evidence that the incident happened near a street light quite away from a shop,” the Court stated as it upheld the conviction.
It mentioned that the applicant had received a three-month prison sentence from the lower court. However, after noting that the appellant merely stopped at using the derogatory term and did not “aggravate” the violation, it mitigated the punishment. As a result, it sentenced him to one month in jail.
