Delhi Court Convicts Man For Using Vulgar Language, Outraging Woman's Modesty

In a verdict reinforcing the right of women to live with dignity and without fear, a Delhi court has convicted a man under Sections 506 (Part II) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal intimidation and using obscene and abusive language intended to outrage a woman's modesty.

The incident involved the accused sending a series of highly vulgar and threatening messages to the complainant. Some of the messages included: "Darwaza khol de mujhe tere saath s** karna hai", "R** tujhe main bataunga, bahut samajhdar apne aap ko samajhti hai", and "R* darwaza khol de, nahi to main tujhe chhodunga nahi".

The court observed that such language goes far beyond casual abuse and directly targets the woman's character and dignity. "The word 'R**' is not a simple insult; it is loaded with sexual connotations, casting aspersions on the woman's morality and loyalty. These words are capable of shocking the conscience of any reasonable person," the court noted.

Citing multiple precedents, including Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill and State of Punjab v. Major Singh, the court reiterated that the modesty of a woman is intrinsically linked to her gender, and words or acts that degrade her in this regard are punishable under law. "To constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, it must be shown that the act or speech was intended to insult the modesty of a woman. In this case, that threshold is clearly met," the judge ruled.

The complainant had also alleged that the accused threatened her with rape and murder if she didn't comply with his demands. Statements such as "Darwaza nahi khola toh goli maar dunga" were held to constitute criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC. The court held that these were not hollow threats but grave intimidations that created fear and terror in the mind of the woman.

The court noted that the accused, while testifying in his own defence, admitted that the messages originated from his mobile number. Although he claimed the messages stemmed from a rent dispute, he did not deny their vulgar content. His admission was taken on record under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that admitted facts need not be further proved.

The defence raised procedural objections, such as the absence of a Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis or IMEI number verification.

However, the court rejected these arguments, noting that the WhatsApp messages -- the main evidence -- had already been admitted by the accused himself. "Minor lapses in investigation do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, especially when the evidence is independently corroborated by the victim's testimony and the accused's own admission," the court said.

The court further discussed the legal contours of Section 509 IPC, clarifying that not all insults amount to an insult to modesty. However, when the words used are capable of "shocking the sense of decency of a woman," they fall squarely within the purview of this section. The court also explained that "modesty" as envisaged under law is not defined in the IPC but is broadly understood as "womanly propriety of behaviour."

Quoting Rupan Deol Bajaj, the court held that, "The ultimate test is whether the words or actions of the accused could be perceived as capable of outraging the modesty of a woman." Given the nature and content of the language used, the court held that this legal standard was clearly met.

The Court held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court convicted the accused under Section 506 (Part II) for criminal intimidation and Section 509 IPC for using words intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)