A Delhi court recently acquitted seven women accused of performing an obscene dance at a bar last year, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove any criminal offense.

The women had been charged under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes obscene acts in public spaces that cause annoyance to others.

In her judgment Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neetu Sharma of Tis Hazari Courts stated that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that any offense had occurred. She emphasized that "wearing small clothes is not a crime, nor is dancing to songs punishable, regardless of whether the dance is performed in public." The judge clarified that the only time such a dance could be penalized is if it caused annoyance to others beyond the dancer.

The case stemmed from a complaint by a sub-inspector (SI), who claimed to have observed the women dancing to "obscene songs in small clothes" while on a routine patrol in the area.

However, the Court pointed out that the SI did not provide evidence that the dance was annoying to anyone else. Additionally, two prosecution witnesses stated that they visited the bar for enjoyment and had no knowledge of the incident.

The Court further criticized the police for failing to substantiate the SI's claims. It noted that the SI did not present any duty roster or Daily Diary (DD) entry to confirm he was on patrol at the relevant time.

The judge observed, "A police officer on duty must have a DD entry to leave the station, but no such evidence was provided."

Moreover, the Court questioned the police's failure to involve any public witnesses in the investigation, especially given that the area had several shops and houses where people could have been approached. The Court found the police's inaction in obtaining statements from potential witnesses troubling and concluded that the police narrative appeared fabricated.

Additionally, the Court acquitted the manager of the bar, who had been charged with failing to maintain CCTV cameras, violating a notification issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Pahar Ganj, under Section 144 of the CrPC.

The Court noted that the prosecution did not present evidence that the notification had been properly published or that the bar manager had knowledge of the order. It also found no evidence that the bar was operating without the necessary license or in violation of government guidelines. 

In light of the lack of supporting evidence, the Court ruled that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as established legal principles dictate that in cases with two plausible views, the one favoring the accused should prevail.