Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?
Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Janak Ram v. State, has held
that addressing an unknown lady as darling would be a criminal offence
under Sections 75/354A and 79/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (IPC).

What was the Background of Janak Ram v. State Case?

 In this case, the accused has asked the victim police lady constable, "क्या
डार्लिंग चालान करने आई है क्या ?
 Thereafter, a case was registered under Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC.
 The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo three months
imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 500 for each of the two offences.
 The accused filed an appeal before the Additional Session Judge, which was
later dismissed, and the accused was directed to surrender within a month.
 Thereafter, a criminal revision application has been filed before the High Court of Calcutta.
 While disposing of the application, the High Court modified the sentence imposed by the trial
court and accordingly imposed a one-month sentence instead.

 What were the Court’s Observations?

 A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta observed addressing an unknown lady, whether a
police constable or not, on the street by a man, drunken or nor, with the word “darling”
is patently offensive and the word used essentially a sexually coloured remark.
 It was further held that using such an expression to an unacquainted lady cannot but be an act
intended to insult the modesty of the addressee. 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.

CONCLUSION

 The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that calling an unknown woman 'Darling' is
offensive and a sexually coloured remark under Section 354 A (i) of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) which penalises sexually coloured remarks [Janak Ram vs State of West
Bengal].
 Single-judge Justice Jay Sengupta at the Port Blair bench upheld the conviction of one
Janak Ram (appellant/ convict) who after being apprehended in an inebriated condition,
had asked a lady police officer (complainant) "kya darling, challan karne aayi hai kya?"
(Hey darling, have you come to impose a fine?)".
 Justice Sengupta referred to Section 354A (outraging modesty of a woman) and said
that the provision penalises use of sexually coloured remarks."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 single-judge held.
 The Court noted that the accused had claimed that there was no proof that the man was
drunk. "If this was done in a sobre state, the gravity of the offence would perhaps be
even more," the Court said in response to the argument.
 It further underlined that 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 an
unsuspecting, unacquainted women.
 As per the prosecution's case, a police team comprising the victim police constable and
other police personnel were proceeding to Lall Tikrey for maintaining law and order on
the eve of Durga Puja. When they reached Webi junction, they received information that
a person was creating nuisance in the area. The police party reached the place,
apprehended the miscreant and took him to the police station while rest of the police
party including the victim stayed back at the junction. As the place was dark, they
decided to go under the street light in front of a shop. When they reached the street light,
the appellant who was standing in front of the shop asked the complainant the sexually
coloured question, “Kya darling challan karne aai hay kya?”
 On this, Mayabunder Police Station registered a first information report (FIR) under
Sections 354A (1) (iv) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
 By a judgment dated April 24, 2023, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at North and
Middle Andaman, Mayabunder convicted the appellant for offences under Sections
354A(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months
and also directed him to pay a fine of ₹500 for each of the two offences.
 His appeal against the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North &
Middle Andaman on November 21, 2023.
 He then filed the present revisional application before the High Court against the
conviction and sentence. The Court first examined Sections 354A and 509 and held that
using expressions like' darling' to address an unacquainted lady would be an offence
under both provisions. "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 Court said. It then noted that there
was sufficient evidence provided by the prosecution to prove that the victim had indeed
addressed the woman constable in the manner as alleged. Pertinently, the Court
conceded that the witnesses to the incident were police personnel and there was no
local person or an independent witness to support the prosecution case.
 What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?
Section 354A of IPC
 Section 354A of IPC deals with Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
 This Section was introduced in IPC by way of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
 It states that -
 (1) A man committing any of the following acts-
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit
sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favors;

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually colored remarks,

shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause
(iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine, or with both.
 The turning point against the growing social menace of sexual harassment of women at
workplace could be traced back to the pathbreaking decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Vishaka and Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
o In this case the SC recognized sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of a woman's
fundamental right to equality and dignity.

Section 509 of IPC

About:
 This Section deals with the word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
 It states that whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes
any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or
that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, and also with fine.

Case Law:
 In the case of Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala (2020), the Kerala High Court held the
gravamen of Section 509 of IPC is the intent to insult the modesty of a woman. It is a settled
position of law that there is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of
insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract section 509 of IPC, merely insulting a
woman is not sufficient and insult to the modesty of a woman is required to have been done.