Calling woman 'r***i' amounts to offence of insulting her modesty: Delhi court

A Delhi court on Tuesday said that the word ‘randi’ (sex worker) is bound to insult the modesty of a woman as it denotes that she is promiscuous and not loyal.

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Harjot Singh Aujila of Dwarka Courts made the observation while convicting one Vikrant Grewal for outraging the modesty of a woman and intimidating her over phone and at her residence in 2021.

“The words uttered by the accused are “Darwaja khol de mujhe tere saath sex karna hai”, “Randi tujhe mai bataunga bahut samajhdar apne to samajahti hai”, “Randi Darwaja Khol de nahi to mai tujhe chodunga nahi”. The word Randi is not a word which is used simply to insult a person. The word is bound to insult the modesty of any hardworking woman. Especially, when this word is used to a woman, it denotes that the said woman is not loyal. Secondly, the words are not simple insult but it directly hits at the sex of a woman and it also shows that the word is intended to mean that the woman is promiscuous and it casts an aspersion on her character,” the Court said.

The Court concluded that the words spoken by the accused were intended to insult the complainant’s modesty and convicted him under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It further found that she was threatened with rape and murder if she did not comply with accused’s demands. Thus, he was also convicted for criminal intimidation.

“The accused used direct threats like “Darwaja nahi khola toh goli maar dunga” which clearly amounts to criminal intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC,” ruled the Court.

The woman, who was living with her husband and daughter at a rented residence, had filed a complaint accusing Grewal of threatening her over phone and using vulgar language. He had also come to her residence multiple times and asked her to open the door.

However, the counsel representing the accused argued before the Court that the entire case of the prosecution was false and fabricated with material inconsistencies and contradictions in the material on record.

Considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Court said the complainant’s testimony had remained unshaken despite a lengthy cross-examination.

“In fact, her truthfulness is bolstered by the voluntary admission of the accused himself as DW1, who conceded to having sent messages with offensive content, albeit trying to justify them based on a rent disagreement,” it added.

The Court rejected the argument that there was no eyewitness to the crime.

It proceeded to factor in the quality of the testimony of the complainant herself.

“The testimony of PW1 is clear, cogent, reliable, trustworthy and she has not deviated from her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During the cross-examination, nothing material has come up in the testimony of PW1 so as to shake her credibility or impeach her credit,” the Court said.

On the submission that the WhatsApp messages were not admissible in absence of a proper certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, the Court said the accused had admitted to sending the messages.

“He claimed that the messages were sent due to a rent dispute, but did not deny their vulgar nature. He also confirmed that he had no further contact with the complainant after the incident. He admitted that the mobile number used for sending messages belonged to him and the messages emanated from his phone. Thus, in lieu of section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, which states that facts admitted need not be proved, argument raised by the defense is rejected,” it added.

Having found that the accused had uttered the words with an intent to outrage her modesty, the Court convicted him and listed the case for hearing on sentencing on July 27.

Additional Public Prosecutor Pankaj Gulia represented the State.

Advocate Amit Chauhan appeared for the accused.

[Read Order]