Sexual harassment criticism is invalid if lady was sporting a ‘provocative dress’, says Kerala court docket
A Kerala court has mentioned that the Indian Penal Code Section 354 that criminalises outraging of a girl’s modesty will not be relevant to a complainant if she was sporting a “sexually provocative dress”, Live Law reported on Wednesday.
The Kozhikode Sessions Court made the statement within the bail order of creator Civic Chandran, who has been booked for harassing a girl on Nandy beach in February 2020, The Hindu reported.
While granting him bail on August 12, the court docket mentioned there was inadequate proof to show fees in opposition to Chandran. There had been many witnesses on the time when the alleged harassment occurred on the crowded seaside, however nobody supported the criticism, the court docket added.
Chandran submitted the photographs of the girl from her social media alongside together with his bail software, primarily based on which the court docket made the statement concerning the Indian Penal Code Section 354, Live Law reported.
“The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one,” the court docket mentioned. “So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused.”
The court docket additionally expressed shock that the 74-year-old creator, who’s bodily disabled, may have made the complainant sit in his lap and fondle her breasts. There was no proof of bodily sexual contact, advances and specific sexual overtures which might be required to draw Section 354, the court docket added.
The creator’s intention to outrage the girl’s modesty was additionally absent, the court docket said in its bail order.
This is the second sexual harassment case filed in opposition to Chandran this 12 months.
In July, a Dalit woman writer had accused the creator of allegedly trying to molest her, The Hindu reported.
He was granted bail on this case by the identical court docket on August 2.
“Considering his age and poor health condition, it cannot be believed that the accused made a kiss on her back without her consent,” the order mentioned. “The different photographs showed that the victim and the accused were in cordial terms, and there was some dispute with respect to the publication of a literature written by the victim.”