The Calcutta High Court, in its recent ruling, declared that referring to an unfamiliar woman as 'darling' constitutes an offensive act and qualifies as a sexually colored remark under Section 354A(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section specifically addresses and penalizes sexually colored remarks.

Single-judge Justice Jay Sengupta at the Port Blair bench affirmed the conviction of Janak Ram, who, while intoxicated and apprehended, addressed a female police officer with the question, "kya darling, challan karne aayi hai kya?" (Hey darling, have you come to impose a fine?).

Janak Ram was the appellant/convict in this case, while the lady police officer served as the complainant.

Justice Sengupta referenced Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to outraging the modesty of a woman, and emphasized that this provision encompasses the penalization of the use of sexually colored 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 mentioned the accused's claim that there was no evidence to prove that the man was intoxicated. The Court emphasized that the current societal norms do not condone allowing a man on the street to casually use such language towards an unfamiliar woman.

As per the prosecution's case, a police team consisting of the victim police constable and other law enforcement personnel were en route to Lall Tikrey to ensure law and order on the eve of Durga Puja.

Upon reaching Webi junction, the police team received information regarding a person causing a disturbance in the area. Subsequently, the police party arrived at the location, apprehended the individual causing the disturbance, and escorted him to the police station. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the police team, 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?”

Following the incident, Mayabunder Police Station filed a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In a judgment dated April 24, 2023, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder, found the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and was also directed to pay a fine of ₹500 for each of the two offences.

After his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North & Middle Andaman on November 21, 2023, the appellant filed a revisional application before the High Court against the conviction and sentence. The High Court, upon reviewing Sections 354A and 509, determined that using expressions like 'darling' to address an unacquainted lady would constitute 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.

The Court mentioned that there was ample evidence provided by the prosecution to substantiate the claim that the appellant had addressed the woman constable in the manner alleged.

Although the witnesses to the incident were primarily police personnel, and there was a lack of local or independent witnesses to support the prosecution's case, the Court determined that the evidence presented by the police personnel established a compelling case for the prosecution.

Regarding the punishment, the High Court emphasized that courts should not strictly adhere to the maximum punishment prescribed for an offence, but rather consider the nature and circumstances of the offence. While acknowledging that the lower court had sentenced the applicant to three months in prison, the High Court modified the punishment. It observed that the appellant did not escalate the offence beyond uttering the offensive expression. Consequently, the High Court imposed a reduced sentence of one month imprisonment.

Advocates Deep Chaim Kabir and S Ajith Prasad appeared for the appellant-convict.

Advocate AS Zinu represented the State.