New Delhi: A Delhi court acquitted seven women accused of obscene dance at a bar, saying neither wearing small clothes is a crime nor dancing on songs can be punished irrespective of whether such dance is done in public and it is only when the dance becomes annoying to other than the dancer can be punished.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neetu Sharma was hearing a matter in which the Paharganj Police Station had booked seven women under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
What was the prosecution case?
As per the police, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention did an obscene act i.e. obscene dance at the bar which caused annoyance to the public persons present at bar and thereby accused persons committed an offence punishable under section 294 of IPC. It said that the accused persons did an obscene act which caused annoyance to the public and a notification was violated by not installing CCTV system.
The prosecution relied on the testimony of a sub-inspector, who claimed that he was on patrolling duty and when he entered the bar, he saw some girls were dancing on obscene songs wearing small clothes.
Neither wearing small clothes is a crime nor dancing on songs can be punished: Court
“Neither wearing small clothes is a crime nor dancing on songs can be punished irrespective of whether such dance is done in public. It is only when the dance becomes annoying to other than the dancer can be punished. Sub-inspector nowhere claims that the dance was annoying any other person,” the court said.
The court further said that the two prosecution witnesses who denied everything and stated that they had gone for enjoyment and that they did not know anything about this case.
“It is clear that the police concocted a story but could not find support from public. In such circumstances, even if we accept the claim of the sub-inspector, the same will not establish the ingredient of the offence,” the court said.
What did the court say?
The court noted that despite the spot being a public place, neither the sub-inspector joined any public person with the investigation and the area concerned is not such a place where only customers were available.
“There would have been shops/house in which several persons would be available. Nothing was prohibiting the police from asking persons of shops/houses, at least they could not have left without giving names & address. Police did not do so. As far as customers are concerned, the police could have taken action against those persons who refused. Section-65 of Delhi Police Act clearly says that every person is bound to comply with the directions of police and if he refuses, he may be produced before a Magistrate. Police witnesses nowhere claim that they ever made any such effort. Clearly, they are not reliable witnesses and appear to have concocted a story,” the court said.
The court also acquitted the manager of the bar accused of violating a notification by not installing CCTV system.
