Delhi sessions court convicted a man of attempting to kiss and slap an intoxicated woman. In its order, the court rejected the argument that her intoxication justified the man’s actions.
According to a sessions court, someone’s intoxication cannot give him license to take advantage of his friend’s condition, as it upheld an order convicting a man for kissing and slapping the victim when she rejected his advances.
On February 5, 2019, Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Gupta heard an appeal filed by accused Sandeep Gupta against his conviction by the Mahila Court for assaulting or criminally causing harm to a woman with the intent of outragement of her modesty and section 323 (voluntarily injuring her).
According to a recent court order, “the prosecution has proven that defendant (Gupta) used criminal force on the complainant knowing it would outrage her modesty by kissing her and slapping her.”
A magistrate’s court convicted him “rightly” of IPC sections 354 and 323 offences, he said.
Defense counsel argued that medical evidence was lacking to show the victim was beaten, and that she did not get herself checked out because she was allegedly drunk. The court dismissed this argument.
An offence can be committed by a mere slap to a person under section 323 of the IPC, according to the notification.
In the same vein, the court said that even if the complaint’s medical examination showed she was drunk at the time, that would not have been of consequence in and of itself, as intoxication does not give a male friend permission to take undue advantage of the lady’s condition.
Furthermore, Gupta’s counsel claimed that the complainant “forced” him to meet with her in the first place.
In spite of the fact that it could be assumed that the complainant was more interested in talking with the appellant, this does not mean the appellant may have taken the liberty of trying to kiss her and slapping her on her refusal/disinterest in it, the ruling stated.
Despite the prosecution’s best efforts, the court acquitted Gupta of the charge under IPC section 506, saying the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant had been criminally intimidated.