View that women wearing jeans 'corrupts' boys unacceptable: Delhi HC overturns acquittal in sexual harassment case

The Delhi High Court recently warned that a woman’s choice of clothing cannot be cited to justify sexual harassment against her..Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while convicting a man for sexually harassing a 17 year-old-girl.Notably, the judge took critical note that one of the reasons cited for the acquittal was the failure of the police to look into the complaints made by the accused and fifty local residents against the prosecutrix and her mother.Justice Sudha was at a "loss of words" on finding that the alleged “crime” of the sexual assault victim and her mother was living in society without a male member, wearing western clothes, “corrupting” the minds of young boys in the locality, having questionable character and filing false complaints against “innocent boys” of the area.The Court observed that these "complaints" reflected a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset. “What a girl or woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal choice. Neither her neighbours, nor society, nor the accused, nor counsel appearing in a court of law has any right to dictate her clothing. It is simply none of their concern. The suggestion that a woman wearing jeans may 'corrupt young boys' reflects a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset. The answer does not lie in controlling the clothes of girls and women. Parents and society must instead teach their children to control their conduct, respect personal boundaries and treat every human with dignity, whether at home or outside," the Court warned. .What a girl or woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal choice. The suggestion that a woman wearing jeans may 'corrupt young boys' reflects a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset.Delhi High Court.The incident transpired in 2013. One Sajid is said to have regularly stalked and accosted a teenager, made sexually coloured remarks about her and touched her inappropriately.The trial court framed charges against Sajid under Section 354A (outraging modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). However, the trial court acquitted Sajid in 2014 owing to discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Delhi government then moved the High Court in appeal against the acquittal..In its August 10 ruling, the High Court took note that the accused man had projected an attitude that he had every right to mentally and physically harass the prosecutrix since she was a woman of "easy virtue" owing to her clothing and conduct.The Court sharply criticised this notion, adding that even women of easy virtual are entitled to privacy and protection. “Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes. So also, it is not open to any and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law.”.Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes.Delhi High Court.The Court further deprecated the defence lawyer’s line of questioning during the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, finding that they were designed to humiliate and morally judge her based on her clothing.“A woman’s choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor serves as justification or condonation for unlawful conduct directed against her. Questions founded upon regressive notions of how a woman ought to dress have no legitimate place in a court of law and cannot be permitted to become a device for character assassination or for blaming the prosecutrix,” the Court observed. The Court went on to note that the defence counsel had also cited the religion of the prosecutrix and of the neighbouring residents while questioning her clothing choices. The Court criticised this, observing that there was no need to bring in religion into a sexual harassment case. "Her religion, the religion of the residents of the locality, and the clothes worn by her have no connection with that issue. Neither religion nor local custom can be used to justify unlawful conduct or to impose restrictions upon the personal choices of a woman. The attempt to bring the religion and attire of (the prosecutrix) into the case was entirely irrelevant and improper," it said. .The Court held that an advocate cannot use cross-examination as a licence to humiliate a witness or attack the woman’s dignity. It also criticised the fact that the defence brought. The Court added that such insulting defence questions should have been disallowed by the trial court.“Whenever cross-examination transgresses the bounds of relevance and propriety, or is employed as a means to intimidate, insult, harass or shame a witness, the Court must intervene promptly and decisively. The process of cross-examination cannot be reduced to an instrument of humiliation, nor can the dignity of a witness be sacrificed under the guise of testing her credibility," it said. .Questions founded upon regressive notions of how a woman ought to dress have no legitimate place in a court of law and cannot be permitted to become a device for charactar assasination.Delhi High Court.The Court proceeded to sound a word of stern caution to judicial officers against entertaining questions on the woman’s clothing, her character, lifestyle, religion or personal choices. Courts cannot be allowed to become a second site of trauma and harassment for victims of sexual crimes, it said. “This duty assumes even greater importance where the witness is a child, a victim of a sexual offence or a person otherwise placed in a vulnerable position,” the Court added.The Court also directed the circulation of the judgment to the Delhi Judicial Academy, to conduct training and sensitisation programmes..The Court proceeded to convict Sajid for the crime on merits, adding that it will decide on his sentence on August 12. .Public Prosecutor Utkarsh appeared for Delhi government.Advocates Mohd Iqbal and Kanwar Faisal appeared for the accused..[Read judgment]