Even police officers are not immune from sexual harassment if a recent judgment from a Kerala court is any indication. [State v. Jose R].An additional judicial magistrate court in Ernakulam recently awarded a three-year jail term to a man found guilty of making over 300 phone calls in the space of 48 hours to harass a lady police officer with lewd remarks.These phone calls were made from the man’s personal mobile number to the official landline of a Vanitha police station (all-women police station)..On July 27, this year, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sajiji BS found the accused, one, Jose from Thiruvananthapuram, guilty of sexual harassment under Section 354A (1)(ii) (a demand or request for sexual favours) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120(o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act..“The act of the accused has not only caused discomfort, mental pain and dislike to the prosecutrix and other staff members of the police station but also adversely affected their public duty to attend the phone calls which might be an emergency and may contain informations and grievance from general public which require emergent action. Thus, the act of the accused not only affected PW1 but also impliedly affected general public,” the Court held in its order..However, since there was no physical contact between the accused and the harassed police officer, the judge acquitted him of the offence under Section 354A(1)(i) (physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures).“The prosecution has no case that accused ever contacted physically with the prosecutrix and advances any unwelcome or explicit sexual overtures. In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that offence u/s.354A(1)(i) IPC would stand against the accused. Hence, the accused is found not guilty u/s.354A(1)(i) IPC,” the Court opined..It also found that the accused could not be held liable for stalking under 354D(1)(i) of the IPC (which deals with following a woman and contacting, or attempting to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman).“In order to fasten criminal liability u/s.354D IPC, accused has to follow the defacto complainant for fostering personal interaction repeatedly. Calling in the official phone of a police station continuously cannot be equated with following a particular person for personal interaction,” the Court reasoned..The lady police officer told the court that the accused had called the police station and made lewd and sexually coloured remarks when she picked up the phone. Feeling uncomfortable, the police officer is stated to have cut the call, only for the accused to persist with endless phone calls over the course of July 10, 2019, till July 11, 2019. Whoever picked up the phone had to hear the obscene remarks, the prosecution claimed.The police officers were eventually forced to keep the phone receiver aside to put an end to the phone calls. The Court was also told that Jose had a history of creating such nuisance in many police stations. A complaint was registered on July 11, 2019, leading to Jose’s arrest.The Court opined that Jose deserved no leniency since he was in the habit of committing such offences against women. It, therefore, sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000 for the offence of sexual harassment. Additionally, he was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment for causing nuisance along with ₹ 5,000 as fine.Both sentences will run concurrently, the judge added. Assistant Public Prosecutor Vinitha TP represented the State whereas the accused was represented by advocate Akhil George and advocate Surjith SR, Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel..[Read Order]
Even police officers are not immune from sexual harassment if a recent judgment from a Kerala court is any indication. [State v. Jose R].An additional judicial magistrate court in Ernakulam recently awarded a three-year jail term to a man found guilty of making over 300 phone calls in the space of 48 hours to harass a lady police officer with lewd remarks.These phone calls were made from the man’s personal mobile number to the official landline of a Vanitha police station (all-women police station)..On July 27, this year, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sajiji BS found the accused, one, Jose from Thiruvananthapuram, guilty of sexual harassment under Section 354A (1)(ii) (a demand or request for sexual favours) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120(o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act..“The act of the accused has not only caused discomfort, mental pain and dislike to the prosecutrix and other staff members of the police station but also adversely affected their public duty to attend the phone calls which might be an emergency and may contain informations and grievance from general public which require emergent action. Thus, the act of the accused not only affected PW1 but also impliedly affected general public,” the Court held in its order..However, since there was no physical contact between the accused and the harassed police officer, the judge acquitted him of the offence under Section 354A(1)(i) (physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures).“The prosecution has no case that accused ever contacted physically with the prosecutrix and advances any unwelcome or explicit sexual overtures. In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that offence u/s.354A(1)(i) IPC would stand against the accused. Hence, the accused is found not guilty u/s.354A(1)(i) IPC,” the Court opined..It also found that the accused could not be held liable for stalking under 354D(1)(i) of the IPC (which deals with following a woman and contacting, or attempting to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman).“In order to fasten criminal liability u/s.354D IPC, accused has to follow the defacto complainant for fostering personal interaction repeatedly. Calling in the official phone of a police station continuously cannot be equated with following a particular person for personal interaction,” the Court reasoned..The lady police officer told the court that the accused had called the police station and made lewd and sexually coloured remarks when she picked up the phone. Feeling uncomfortable, the police officer is stated to have cut the call, only for the accused to persist with endless phone calls over the course of July 10, 2019, till July 11, 2019. Whoever picked up the phone had to hear the obscene remarks, the prosecution claimed.The police officers were eventually forced to keep the phone receiver aside to put an end to the phone calls. The Court was also told that Jose had a history of creating such nuisance in many police stations. A complaint was registered on July 11, 2019, leading to Jose’s arrest.The Court opined that Jose deserved no leniency since he was in the habit of committing such offences against women. It, therefore, sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000 for the offence of sexual harassment. Additionally, he was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment for causing nuisance along with ₹ 5,000 as fine.Both sentences will run concurrently, the judge added. Assistant Public Prosecutor Vinitha TP represented the State whereas the accused was represented by advocate Akhil George and advocate Surjith SR, Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel..[Read Order]
