The Calcutta High Court has exempted the conviction of women under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code stating that the provision specifically begins with the term "A Man".
A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta perused the provision "[354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-- A man committing any of the following acts"
It further stated "it can be safely accepted that a female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC as is evident from very terminology as used in the said enactment. This offence is gender specific and only a male can be prosecuted under this offence. A female accused will not be covered under the mischief of this Section as a result of the specific words "a man" used in the Section 354A sub-sections (1 ), (2) and (3) of the IPC. Accordingly, the allegation of an offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC is not applicable against the present petitioner."
A Criminal Revisional Application had been filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the CPC, by the petitioners seeking the cased against them be quashed. On September 1 5, 2018 a complaint was lodged by the second respondent against the four accused, alleging the torture of the complainant's mother by Samir Pandit.
The complainant alleged that Samir Pandit entered her room while she was changing and attempted to molest her. Additionally, the FIR accused Pandit's daughter, the petitioner, of instigating and torturing the complainant's mother along with others.
Under Sections 354A, 506, and 34 of the IPC the petitioner argued that a charge sheet be filed against her and the other three, despite her innocence and lack of direct involvement in the alleged felony. She argued that the charge sheet lacked sufficient evidence to justify proceeding against her, constituting an abuse of the legal process that needed immediate intervention.
The petitioner then made the argument that Section 354A cannot convict a female accused as it specifically states IA Manl demanding the proceeding against her be revoked. The State ls counsel argued that the FIR identified the accused, including the petitioner, claiming they threatened the complainant and her mother with appalling consequences as part of a common intention.
Allegedly, Samir Pandit demanded sexual favours at her home and that the petitioner was guilty of having a common intention making Section 354A applicable to her. Nevertheless, the court stated the no direct allegations were made against the petitioner under Section 354A, 506 or 34 of the IPC.
"From the entire evidence collected during the investigation, this Court does not find any specific role attributed against the petitioner with regard to the allegations made by the complainant. Under such circumstances, all the allegations made against the present petitioner is merely for implication with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite her due to private and personal grudge" stated the court.
The court dismissed the case against her citing that Section 354A cannot be applied to women, despite concerns about personal motives.
TAGS: Section 354A Assault Conviction Sexual Harassment Quashed Exemption
