While upholding the conviction of a man for forcibly trying to kiss a woman and then slapping her, a Delhi Court has recently held that intoxication of a woman “does not give licence to her male friend to take undue advantage of her condition”.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sunil Gupta of Saket Court was hearing an appeal filed by accused Sandeep Gupta against his conviction by a Mahila Court on February 5, 2019 under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt).
According to the convict, the complainant was in a relationship with him and the two could not marry, as they were from different religions and so their parents did not approve of it. The convict contended before the court that there is no medical evidence to show that the complainant was beaten up by him and that she did not get herself medically examined as same would have showed that she was drunk at that time.
The ASJ rejected his contention and said, “There is no law to the effect that an offence of simple hurt U/s 323 IPC cannot be proved in the absence of a medical examination of the victim especially when the allegations are pertaining to her having been slapped”.
The Judge observed, “..even if the medical examination of the complainant would have shown that she was drunk at that time, that in itself would not have been of any consequence as intoxication of a lady does not give licence to her male friend to take undue advantage of her condition”.
The ASJ said the Mahila court had “rightly convicted” him of the offences under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC.
“The prosecution has proved that the appellant (Gupta) has used criminal force against the complainant knowing that he will thereby outrage her modesty by trying to kiss her and also voluntarily caused hurt to her by slapping her,” the judge said in its order dated August 11.
“Mere slap to a person is sufficient to make out a case for the offence under section 323 of the IPC and no medical examination can ordinarily show any proof thereof”, the court added.
The court also rejected the argument of Gupta’s counsel that it was the complainant who “forced” him to meet and talk to her. “Even if it is presumed that the complainant was more interested in meeting and talking to the appellant, that does not mean that the appellant could have taken the liberty of trying to kiss her and on her refusal/ disinterest in the same, could have slapped her,” the court said.
The ASJ, however, acquitted Gupta of the charge under IPC section 506, saying the prosecution failed to prove that he had criminally intimidated the complainant.
Comments
0 comment