A Kerala court docket has stated that the Indian Penal Code Part 354 that criminalises outraging of a girl’s modesty is just not relevant to a complainant if she was sporting a “sexually provocative costume”, Stay Regulation reported on Wednesday.
The Kozhikode Periods Courtroom made the commentary within the bail order of writer Civic Chandran, who has been booked for harassing a girl on Nandy seaside in February 2020, The Hindu reported.
Whereas granting him bail on August 12, the court docket stated there was inadequate proof to show the costs towards Chandran. There have been many witnesses on the time when the alleged harassment came about on the crowded seaside, however nobody supported the grievance, the court docket added.
Chandran submitted the pictures of the lady from her social media alongside along with his bail software, primarily based on which the court docket made the commentary in regards to the Indian Penal Code Part 354, Stay Regulation reported.
“The images produced together with the bail software by the accused would reveal that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to attire that are having some sexual provocative one,” the court docket stated. “So Part 354A is not going to prima facie stand towards the accused.”
The court docket additionally expressed shock that the 74-year-old writer, who’s bodily disabled, might have made the complainant sit in his lap and fondle her breasts. There was no proof of bodily sexual contact, advances and specific sexual overtures which might be required to draw Part 354, the court docket added.
The writer’s intention to outrage the lady’s modesty was additionally absent, the court docket acknowledged in its bail order.
That is the second sexual harassment case filed towards Chandran this 12 months.
In July, a Dalit lady author had accused the writer of allegedly trying to molest her, The Hindu reported.
He was granted bail on this case by the identical court docket on August 2.
“Contemplating his age and poor well being situation, it can’t be believed that the accused made a kiss on her again with out her consent,” the order stated. “The totally different pictures confirmed that the sufferer and the accused had been in cordial phrases, and there was some dispute with respect to the publication of a literature written by the sufferer.”
