Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court, through its Circuit Bench at Port Blair, addressed a case involving the use of a sexually coloured remark by an individual towards a lady constable. The court, presided over by Justice Jay Sengupta, upheld the conviction of the accused and explored the nuances of Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused had allegedly referred to the constable as ‘darling’ in an inebriated state, leading to charges under these sections. This case, identified as Janak Ram v State, sheds light on the intersection of freedom of expression, societal standards, and legal boundaries.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The prosecution contended that the accused’s use of the term ‘darling’ constituted a sexually coloured remark, justifying charges under Sections 354A and 509 IPC. The incident occurred during a police patrol, and the prosecution emphasized that the remark was evidently reprehensible and aimed at outraging the modesty of the woman. On the other hand, the defense argued that the word used was colloquial and lacked a sexual connotation. They pointed to a lack of clarity regarding the time of the occurrence, suggesting a clash of egos and questioning the credibility of the complainant’s account. Additionally, the defense posited that even if a sexually coloured remark was made, it did not meet the criteria for Section 509 IPC, as there was no intention to outrage the modesty of the woman.

Court’s Judgment:

The court, after considering the arguments, applied the criteria outlined in Sections 354A and 509 IPC to determine the legality of the accused’s remark. Justice Jay Sengupta noted that addressing an unknown lady as ‘darling’ on the street, irrespective of the accused’s inebriated state, was patently offensive and constituted a sexually coloured remark. The court emphasized that prevailing societal standards did not permit such expressions towards unsuspecting women. Despite some inconsistency in police witnesses’ testimonies, the court held that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. While acknowledging the accused’s inebriated state, the court revised the sentence to one month, considering that the accused had not aggravated the situation after making theremark.