Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Section 509 criminalizes a 'word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman' and in order to establish this offence it is necessary to show that the modesty of a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women has been insulted by a spoken word, gesture or physical act. In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses modesty. In Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill [AIR 1996 SC 309], it was held that if the word uttered or the gesture made could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, then it can be found that it is an act of insult to the modesty of the woman. In Basheer vs. Kerala [2014 KHC 5026], it was held that there must be a definitive allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or KARANBIR State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 16 / 19 SINGH intrusion into the privacy of woman. The sine qua non for application of Section 509 IPC is that there must be an intention to outrage modesty of a woman. The word "modesty" has not been defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor in Section 354, and 509, of the IPC, 1860. In the Oxford English Dictionary one of the meanings given for the word "modesty" is "womanly propriety of behaviour". What the legislature had in mind when it used the word modesty in Sections 354 and 509, IPC was protection of an attribute which is peculiar to woman, as a virtue which attaches to a female on account of her sex.

24. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill AIR 1996 SC 309 the Supreme Court held that: "The ultimate test for ascertaining whether the modesty has been outraged is, in the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman".

25. In the present matter, the accused Gyan Chand uttered the words " main teri gaand faad dunga. Tu apne aap ko samjhti kya hai. Teri maa chod dunga".

Further, the accused Nitin uttered the words " tu ek bazaru aurat hai. Tujhe nanga kar dunga". Accused Nitin also abused the complainant by saying " bhenchod, haram jaadi tere bacho ko uthva dunga aur apna mu band rakhiyo" . The aforesaid words clearly are not the words which simply insult any woman. These are the words which are intended to insult the modesty of any women as the aforesaid words have the capability to shock the sense of the decency of any woman. Saying Bazaru Aurat to any woman would imply that she is a prostitute and the aforesaid words definitely insult the modesty of a woman. Further, the words uttered by the accused are directly aimed at her decency and modesty. Abusing the mother of complainant would definitely shock her decency. As noted above, the aforesaid testimony of PW1 has gone entirely unchallenged in the cross-examination as no specific suggestions have State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 17 / 19 been given to deny the same. Accordingly, the court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the offence u/s 509 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.