Rupan Deol Bajaj V. KPS Gill
This case is considered as one of the most high-profile
cases as it involved the IAS officer and Director General of Police, Punjab at
the time of this case.
Name of the case:
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. (Petitioner)
Vs.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. (Respondent)
Citation: 1996 AIR 309, 1995 SCC (6) 194
Bench:Mukherjee M.K. (J), Anand A.S. (J)
Charges lodged under different sections of IPC:
Section 341: Punishment for wrongful restraint.
Section 342: Punishment for wrongful confinement.
Section 352: Punishment for assault or criminal force
otherwise than on grave
provocation.
Section 354: Assault or criminal force to woman with
intent to outrage her modesty.
Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult
the modesty of a woman.
Fact of the case:
The statement below states the incident which happened
with Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and which was registered by Inspector General of
Police, Chandigarh Union Territory as an FIR.
(i) Around 10 P.M. Dr. P.N. Chutani and Shri Gill
walked across to and set in the ladies' circle;
(ii) Mrs. Bajaj, who was then talking to Mrs. Bijlani
and Mrs. Bhandari, was requested by Mr. Gill to come and sit near him as he
wanted to talk to her about something;
(iii) Responding to his such request when Mrs. Bajaj
went to sit in a chair next to him Mr. Gill suddenly pulled that chair close to
his chair;
(iv) Felling a bit surprised, when she put that chair
at its original place and was about to sit down, Mr. Gill again pulled his
chair closer;
(v) Realizing something was wrong she immediately left
the place and went back to sit with the ladies;
(vi) After about 10 minutes Shri Gill came and stood
in front of her so close that his legs were about 4" from her knees;
(vii) He then by an action with the crook of his
finger asked her to "get up immediately" and come along with him;
(viii) When she strongly objected to his behavior and
asked him to go away from there, he repeated his earlier command which shocked
the ladies present there;
(ix) Being apprehensive and frightened she tried to
leave the place but could not as he had blocked her way;
(x) Finding no other alternative when she drew her
chair back and turned backwards, he slapped her on the posterior in the full
presence of the ladies and guests.
Trial:
Court, in this case, first tried to interpret that the
allegation as stated above proves that the person is liable or not under
section 354 & 509 of IPC and the modesty of the woman is outraged or not. These
sections read as:
Section 354: Assault or criminal force to woman with
the intent to outrage the modesty.
“Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage
her modesty, [shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to 5 years, and
shall be liable to fine.]”
Section 509: Word gesture or act intended to insult the
modesty of a woman.
“Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any
woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object,
intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or
object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman, [shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend
to 3 years, and also with fine.]”
Since, the word modesty is not defined in the Indian
Penal Code,Supreme Court referredto the case of “State of Punjab V. Major Singh”
(AIR 1967 SC 63) in which the court interpreted the word modesty. In this case
the court held that, when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is
clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must
fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC.The essence of a woman's modesty is
her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the
attribute of her sex.
From the above interpretation given by the court, it
was determined by the Court, that the modestyof a woman is outraged or not can
be determined by the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one
which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
When the above test is applied in the present case,
keeping in view the total fact situation, it cannot but be held that the
alleged act of Mr. Gill in slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior amounted to
`outraging of her modesty' for it was not only an affront to the normal sense
of feminine decency but also an affront to the dignity of the lady -
"sexual overtones" or not, notwithstanding.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court of India upheld the charges and
conviction of KPS Gill for the offense. He was spared from undergoing the
three-month jail sentence as it was converted into probation by Punjab and
Haryana High Court.KPS Gill was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 200,000, be
imprisoned rigorously for 3 months and simply for 2 months, and finally to
serve 3 years of probation. Rupan Deol Bajaj declined to accept the monetary
compensation. The court ordered that it be donated to women's
organizations.After final appeals before the Supreme Court of India in July
2005 the conviction was upheld and the jail sentences were reduced to
probation.
Reference:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/579822/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupan_Deol_Bajaj_case
Universal’s Bare Act
0 Comments