In a firm declaration, the Delhi High Court emphasized that discussions on women’s progress remain superficial without the assurance of safe public spaces. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted this during a judgment passed on February 28, which upheld the conviction of a man for sexually harassing a female co-passenger on a public bus in 2015.
Justice Sharma pointed out that real empowerment for women begins with their right to live and move freely without fear. The court refused to interfere with the 2019 trial court’s decision that sentenced the accused to one year of simple imprisonment under Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, and an additional six months under Section 509 (Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).
The case, which also saw the conviction upheld by the sessions court on appeal, became a focal point for the high court’s lamentation over the ongoing harassment women face in public areas, even decades after India’s independence and despite stringent laws. The court stressed that public transport should not be a place of vulnerability, and that leniency towards such crimes could embolden potential offenders.
Highlighting the specific details of the harassment that occurred on a public bus, Justice Sharma criticized the actions of the accused, who made inappropriate gestures and forcibly kissed the victim. She emphasized the role of judicial decisions in sending a clear message to society about the seriousness with which such offences are viewed.
“The judgments in such cases are pivotal in communicating to the society that true upliftment of women necessitates first creating an environment where they are safe from harassment, humiliation, and fear,” Justice Sharma stated.
The court also recognized the commendable courage shown by witnesses, including the bus conductor and another passenger, who supported the prosecution by testifying freely in court. This underscored the importance of collective societal responsibility in ensuring women’s safety.
Justice Sharma pointed out the vital role played by alert passengers who intervened and apprehended the accused, supporting the complainant during a distressing ordeal. This, she noted, was crucial even in a crowded setting where the complainant had to defend herself and face public humiliation.
The court dismissed the accused’s defense that his physical handicap and mental disability made it unlikely for him to commit such an act in public, noting that sexual offences are often opportunistic, and the lack of an explicit motive does not preclude the occurrence of such crimes.
