The woman had alleged that the man attacked her character with the remark, which was made while she told her three-year-old daughter that her father had arrived to pick them up after school. The court ruled that the comment implied she had multiple men in her life and questioned the child’s paternity, directly insulting the woman’s modesty.
The September 24 ruling held, “This Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on March 23, 2021…accused…uttered the words ‘kaun se wale papa’ to complainant in the circumstances described above, intending that the same be heard by her and with the intention of insulting her modesty… Accordingly, (he) is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.”
“Words cannot be evaluated in isolation from the circumstances in which they are spoken. The complainant woman was accompanied by her three-year-old daughter… The expression, when addressed to a woman in the aforesaid setting, is not an innocuous inquiry as to the identity of a person,” the court said.
It added that the obvious reference was that there may be multiple men who could be described as the child’s father, casting doubts on the complainant’s sexual propriety and fidelity. “The meaning emanates not merely from the literal words, but from the specific circumstance to which the remark was directed,” the court said.
Father-in law alerts cops
The incident took place around 4 pm when the woman was passing through a street outside her house with her daughter. The child was crying and the mother told her, “Dekho papa aa gaye (Your father has come), don’t cry.” The accused is said to have immediately remarked, “Kaun se wale papa aa gaye? (Which father has come?).”
Story continues below this ad
The complainant ignored the remark. About two minutes later, the woman’s husband reached, but she did not disclose the incident to him at the time, and her husband left in his car along with their daughter.
The woman later disclosed the incident to her father-in-law, who alerted the police. She also gave a written complaint, following which an FIR was registered and the police filed a charge sheet under IPC Section 509, which deals with “word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman” and carries a maximum jail term of three years along with fine.
The complainant identified the accused in court and said he had made the comment “in a very bad manner”. She added that there was no previous quarrel between their families.
The woman also rejected the defence’s suggestion that the case had been filed to remove the accused from the place where he had been carrying on his ironing work for about seven years. The court, however, found that nothing in the woman’s cross-examination led to discredit her account of the incident.
Story continues below this ad
Accused admits utterance
The accused did not deny uttering the words, but said they were not spoken with any “ill intention”. He did not lead evidence in his defence.
The court said the admission could not by itself replace the prosecution’s obligation to prove the case, but could be considered along with the evidence. In this case, it provided additional support to the complainant’s testimony.
The judge said the real issue was the intention accompanying the words. It found no surrounding circumstance that could reasonably give the remark an innocent meaning.
The court made it clear that every rude, offensive or insulting remark directed at a woman would not automatically amount to an offence. The insult must have the required connection with her modesty.
Story continues below this ad
“In the present case, however…they carry a sexually derogatory insinuation concerning the complainant’s relationship with men and the paternity of her child. The words were personally directed at the woman and were uttered in immediate response to her referring to the child’s father. Such an imputation goes beyond mere discourtesy or a casual taunt and is capable of affronting the dignity and sense of decency of a woman,” the court said.
The court also considered the absence of an independent public witness. It held that this did not create reasonable doubt because the complainant was the direct witness, her testimony on the material point had not been shaken and the accused himself had admitted making the remark.
The court ultimately held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had uttered “kaun se wale papa” to the woman, intending that the words be heard by her and to insult her modesty. It convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 509. A separate hearing will be held on the quantum of sentence.
