A Delhi court recently acquitted seven women who were accused of performing an obscene dance at a bar last year and causing annoyance to the public..The women were booked by the Paharganj Police Station under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes any obscene act done at a public place to the annoyance of others..Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neetu Sharma of Tis Hazari Courts said the prosecution failed to prove that any offence was committed in the case.“Now, neither wearing small clothes is a crime nor dancing on songs can be punished irrespective of whether such dance is done in public. It is only when the dance becomes annoying to other than the dancer can be punished,” the judge stated in her judgment of February 4..The case was registered on a complaint by a Sub-Inspector (SI) who claimed to be on patrolling duty in the area. His allegation was that when he entered the bar, he saw some girls were dancing on “obscene songs wearing small clothes”. The Court said the police officer nowhere claimed that the dance was annoying any other person. It further noted that the two prosecution witnesses stated they had gone to the place for enjoyment and did not know anything about the case.“It is clear that the police concocted a story but could not find support from public. In such circumstances, even if we accept the claim of SI Dharmender, the same will not establish the ingredient of the offence," it added..Further, the Court said the SI had failed to produce any duty roster or DD entry to show that he actually was on a patrolling at the relevant point of time in the concerned area.“A police officer who is on duty can leave the police station only by way of DD entry and not otherwise. Since, a documentary proof is bound to exist for showing the availability of PW1 in the area, the oral claim cannot be allowed to be accepted when he has not brought such a record,” it added.The Court also questioned the police failure to make any public person join the investigation. It said the area in question was not such where people would not be available. “There would have been shops/house in which several persons would be available. Nothing was prohibiting the police from asking persons of shops/houses, atleast they could not have left without giving names & address. Police did not do so. As far as customers are concerned, the police could have taken action against those persons who refused. Section-65 of Delhi Police Act clearly says that every person is bound to comply with the directions of police and if he refuses, he may be produced before a Magistrate. Police witnesses nowhere claim that they ever made any such effort. Clearly, they are not reliable witnesses and appear to have concocted a story,” it concluded..Meanwhile, the Court also acquitted the manager of the bar who was accused of failing to properly maintain the CCTV cameras at the bar in violation of an order/notification issued by ACP, Pahar Ganj under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The Court said the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to show that the notification was ever published or that the accused had actual knowledge of the order promulgated by the ACP.It also noted that there was no allegation that the restaurant and bar in question were running without proper license or in contravention to the provisions and the guidelines issued by the government. “Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence being adduced in this regard, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused as there is settled proposition of law, that where two views possible one favouring the accused should be adopted,” it said. .[Read Judgment]
A Delhi court recently acquitted seven women who were accused of performing an obscene dance at a bar last year and causing annoyance to the public..The women were booked by the Paharganj Police Station under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes any obscene act done at a public place to the annoyance of others..Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neetu Sharma of Tis Hazari Courts said the prosecution failed to prove that any offence was committed in the case.“Now, neither wearing small clothes is a crime nor dancing on songs can be punished irrespective of whether such dance is done in public. It is only when the dance becomes annoying to other than the dancer can be punished,” the judge stated in her judgment of February 4..The case was registered on a complaint by a Sub-Inspector (SI) who claimed to be on patrolling duty in the area. His allegation was that when he entered the bar, he saw some girls were dancing on “obscene songs wearing small clothes”. The Court said the police officer nowhere claimed that the dance was annoying any other person. It further noted that the two prosecution witnesses stated they had gone to the place for enjoyment and did not know anything about the case.“It is clear that the police concocted a story but could not find support from public. In such circumstances, even if we accept the claim of SI Dharmender, the same will not establish the ingredient of the offence," it added..Further, the Court said the SI had failed to produce any duty roster or DD entry to show that he actually was on a patrolling at the relevant point of time in the concerned area.“A police officer who is on duty can leave the police station only by way of DD entry and not otherwise. Since, a documentary proof is bound to exist for showing the availability of PW1 in the area, the oral claim cannot be allowed to be accepted when he has not brought such a record,” it added.The Court also questioned the police failure to make any public person join the investigation. It said the area in question was not such where people would not be available. “There would have been shops/house in which several persons would be available. Nothing was prohibiting the police from asking persons of shops/houses, atleast they could not have left without giving names & address. Police did not do so. As far as customers are concerned, the police could have taken action against those persons who refused. Section-65 of Delhi Police Act clearly says that every person is bound to comply with the directions of police and if he refuses, he may be produced before a Magistrate. Police witnesses nowhere claim that they ever made any such effort. Clearly, they are not reliable witnesses and appear to have concocted a story,” it concluded..Meanwhile, the Court also acquitted the manager of the bar who was accused of failing to properly maintain the CCTV cameras at the bar in violation of an order/notification issued by ACP, Pahar Ganj under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The Court said the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to show that the notification was ever published or that the accused had actual knowledge of the order promulgated by the ACP.It also noted that there was no allegation that the restaurant and bar in question were running without proper license or in contravention to the provisions and the guidelines issued by the government. “Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence being adduced in this regard, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused as there is settled proposition of law, that where two views possible one favouring the accused should be adopted,” it said. .[Read Judgment]
