New Delhi: A Delhi court has delivered a significant judgment convicting an accused for outraging the modesty of a woman and for criminal intimidation. The court emphasized that certain derogatory terms are inherently insulting to a woman’s modesty and character.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Harjot Singh Aujla of Dwarka Courts made crucial observations on the nature of words that constitute an insult to a woman’s modesty while delivering the verdict in State vs. Vikrant Grewal @ Vikky.
The case pertained to FIR No. 295/2021, registered under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code at Janakpuri Police Station. The accused was charged with criminal intimidation and for outraging the modesty of the complainant.
Addressing the specific nature of the threats and abuse, the court noted:
“The accused used direct threats like ‘Darwaza khol de, mujhe tere saath sex karna hai,’ and later said, ‘Darwaza khol de nahi toh tere saath accha nahi hoga, tujhe goli maar dunga.’ He further uttered, ‘Ri, tujhe main bataunga… bahut samajhdar apne aap ko samajhti hai,’ and later added, ‘Ri, darwaza khol de, nahi toh main tujhe chhodunga nahi.’”
The court underlined the legal interpretation of what constitutes an insult to modesty under Section 509 IPC, observing:
“The word ‘r**i’ is not merely used to insult a person. It is inherently offensive and bound to insult the modesty of any hardworking woman. When used against a woman, it implies she is not loyal and casts serious aspersions on her character.”
In a key observation, the court stated:
“These words are not a simple insult — they directly target a woman’s sex and imply promiscuity, thereby constituting a grave insult to her modesty.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill, the court reaffirmed the legal standard:
“The ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the offender’s actions are such that they shock the sense of decency of a woman.”
The court found the testimony of the victim (PW1) to be detailed, consistent, and reliable:
“PW1 deposed that the accused repeatedly called her, visited her house, and used filthy and threatening language. The threats were not vague — they were specific in terms of time, place, and language used.”
On the charge of criminal intimidation, the court held:
“The complainant was threatened with rape and murder if she didn’t comply with the accused’s demands. The direct threat, ‘Darwaza nahi khola toh goli maar dunga,’ clearly falls within the scope of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC.”
Regarding the admissibility of WhatsApp messages, the court noted:
“Interestingly, the accused, Vikrant Grewal, in his testimony as a defence witness, admitted to sending messages to the complainant on the date of the incident. While he claimed they were sent due to a rent dispute, he did not deny their vulgar nature.”
The court rejected the defence’s argument regarding lack of eyewitnesses:
“This argument holds no merit. The quality of the testimony matters more than the quantity of witnesses. The testimony of PW1 was clear, cogent, reliable, and consistent with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.”
Final Verdict:
“Based on the above discussion, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused stands convicted for offences under Sections 506 (Part 2) and 509 of the IPC.”
The court emphasized that the essence of a woman’s modesty lies in her sex, and that any words which directly attack this aspect of her identity constitute a clear violation of Section 509 IPC.
Mr. Pankaj Gulia appeared as learned APP for the State, while Mr. Amit Chauhan appeared as learned counsel for the accused.
Case Title: State vs. Vikrant Grewal @ Vikky
