Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, while refusing to quash a case against a person accused of outraging the modesty of a woman by making remarks about a woman’s body structure, said that a man making a remark on the body structure of a woman would attract the offence of sexual harassment.
Justice Badharudeen was hearing a plea by an accused seeking quashment of the case registered against him alleging commission of offences punishable under section 354A(1)(iv) (punishment for making making sexually coloured remarks) and section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as under section 120 (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act.
What was the case?
As per the prosecution, the accused, who was working in the same office as the complainant, with intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant, made sexually coloured remarks and overtures while the complainant was working at the Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. The specific allegation was that the accused commented that the body structure of the complainant was fine and thereafter he sent messages with sexual overtures to the mobile number of the complainant from his mobile number.
What did the counsel for accused argue?
The counsel representing the accused argued that prima facie, the prosecution materials do not constitute ingredients to attract the offences alleged to be committed, by the petitioner and that mere reference that a person has a nice body structure could not be attributed to sexually coloured remarks within the ambit of section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC, section 509 as well as section 120(o) of KP Act.
What did the High Court say?
The high Court said that when utterance of any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, with an intention to insult the modesty of a woman or to intrude upon the privacy of a woman, the said overt acts would attract offence under section 509 of IPC and any man making sexually coloured remarks to a woman is guilty of the offence of sexual harassment under section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC. If any person causing inconvenience or annoyance through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger, is an offence, the High Court added.
Case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract offences alleged to be committed: High Court
“In the instant case the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused with intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, by making sexually coloured remarks and overtures at about 2.30 hours on 31.03.2017 while the defacto complainant was working at the Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., commented that the body structure of the defacto complainant was fine and thereafter on 15.6.2017, 17.06.201720 and 20.06.2017, the accused sent messages with sexual overtures to the mobile number of the defacto complainant from his mobile number,” the High Court said while refusing to quash the case against the accused and added, “Having noticed the facts of the case, it is discernible that the prosecution case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract the offences alleged to be committed.”
