Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

 ‘Outraging the Modesty of a Woman,’ - ‘Culpable Intention of the Accused’ is Crucial” – Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment , Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma clarified the legal intricacies surrounding Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with “outraging the modesty of a woman.” The court emphasized that the “culpable intention of the accused” is the pivotal factor in determining whether an act outrages a woman’s modesty.

The case involved an employee at HDFC Life Insurance who accused her superior of using derogatory language against her. The court set aside the impugned order from the Trial Court, stating that the term “Gandi Aurat” (dirty woman) used by the accused did not meet the criteria for outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 IPC.

Justice Sharma elaborated on the concept of “modesty of women,” describing it as a “set of culturally and socially defined behaviors, manners, and dress codes intended to preserve a woman’s sense of privacy, decency, and dignity.” The judgment further clarified that the interpretation of what constitutes an outrage to modesty can be “context-specific,” depending on societal norms, cultural values, and individual perspectives.

The court also outlined a test for determining whether an act outrages the modesty of a woman, emphasizing that the “reaction of the woman involved is relevant but not always conclusive.” The judgment has been hailed as a significant step in clarifying the legal framework surrounding the issue, providing much-needed guidance for future cases.

The case referred to previous judgments, including Ram Kripal v. State of MP, to support its decision. The court concluded by emphasizing the need for a balanced judicial perspective and noted that the accused should have been more courteous in his behavior.

Date of Decision: August 28, 2023

    VARUN BHATIA vs    STATE AND ANOTHER

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Varun_Bhatia_vs_State_And_Another_on_28_August_2023_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News