Sexual Harassment Plaint Invalid if Woman Wore ‘Provocative Dress’

 If a woman was wearing clothing that was sexually suggestive, a sexual harassment claim would not be upheld prima facie.

 

The Kerala Court noted that the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie attracted when the woman was wearing "sexually provocative dresses" while granting anticipatory bail to author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case Case Title: Civic Chandran@ C. V. Kuttan v. State of Kerala.

The 74-year-old accused had sent the woman's photos with the bail request. "The images that the accused submitted with the bail application show that the de facto complainant is wearing outfits that are sexually suggestive. Therefore, Section 354A will not be a strong argument against the accused "In its order, the Kozhikode Sessions Court made a notation.

The 74-year-old physically challenged accused's ability to forcibly place the de facto complainant in his lap and touch her breasts was also questioned by the court.

The Court said that it is abundantly obvious from the language of Section 354 that the accused must have intended to offend a woman's modesty. A violation of Section 354A, which deals with sexual harassment and its penalties, must involve physical contact, approaches that are unwanted and overtly sexual, sexually charged remarks, demands for sexual favours, or requests for sexual favours.
The Court stated that it is a well-established rule that where there is a significant delay in filing a FIR, the delay must be well justified. In this case, the FIR was filed two years after the alleged crime date.

In a camp gathered at Nandi beach in February 2020, the accused, according to the prosecution, made sexual advances toward the de facto complainant, a young female writer, and attempted to offend her modesty. A case has been opened by the Koyilandi police against the accused for violations of Sections 354A(2), 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

When the Bail Application was brought before the Session Court, the accused's attorneys, Advocates P.V. Hari and Sushama M, argued that the case against the accused was created by some of his enemies in order to exact revenge on him.

Additionally, it was argued that since the case was filed about two years after the claimed incident, the prosecution should provide an explanation for the delay.

He claimed that the de facto complainant was accompanied to the scene by her boyfriend and that several people were present at the time of the alleged incident, but that no one made a complaint against the accused. He supported this claim with photos that the de facto complainant had posted on her social media accounts. The Public Prosecutor argued that the accused had once been the subject of a similar sexual harassment case, hence he or she should not be granted bail.