In a recent ruling, a Delhi sessions court has upheld the conviction of a man for attempting to kiss a woman and slapping her, while also making an important observation about consent in cases involving intoxication. The court's verdict emphasized that a woman's state of intoxication does not grant permission to her male friend to exploit her condition.
The case revolved around an appeal filed by accused Sandeep Gupta against his conviction under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt). The appeal was heard by Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Gupta.
Judge Sunil Gupta, in his order, affirmed the lower court's decision, stating, "The prosecution has proved that the appellant (Gupta) has used criminal force against the complainant knowing that he will thereby outrage her modesty by trying to kiss her and also voluntarily caused hurt to her by slapping her."
The court further dismissed the argument presented by the defence counsel regarding the absence of medical evidence to show that the victim had been assaulted and her failure to undergo a medical examination due to alleged intoxication. It stated, "Mere slap to a person is sufficient to make out a case for the offence under section 323 of the IPC... Similarly, even if the medical examination of the complainant would have shown that she was drunk at that time, that in itself would not have been of any consequence as the intoxication of a lady does not give license to her male friend to take undue advantage of her condition."
The court's decision underscored the importance of consent, irrespective of the woman's intoxication state. It rejected the argument that the complainant's interest in meeting and talking to the appellant justified the accused's actions. The court asserted that even if the complainant displayed interest, it did not provide grounds for attempting to kiss her and subsequently slapping her when she refused.
Notably, while Gupta was acquitted of the charge under IPC section 506 (criminal intimidation), the court highlighted that the prosecution had failed to prove this specific offence.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
