Driver of private car vicariously liable for catcalling of women by co-passenger: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the conviction of the driver of a private car in a case involving allegations that women were catcalled from the car [Karan versus State of UT Chandigarh]..Justice Harpreet Singh Brar rejected the contention of the convict (petitioner) that he was only the driver and it was the co-accused, who was sitting beside him, who had passed obscene comments at the women..The Court accepted that while there were no specific allegation of making vulgar remarks against the petitioner, his accompanying the co-accused and being the driver of the car pointed to their common intention.“Section 34 of IPC requires meeting of minds between the accused persons and prior concert. Since that has been adequately established by the prosecution, the petitioner can be held vicariously liable for the acts of the co-accused,” said the Court.It noted that the victim had deposed that even in the courtroom she was subjected to “crude and offensive remarks and gestures” by the petitioner and co-accused..In 2015, the petitioner and a co-accused were driving a car in Sector 36 of Chandigarh and catcalling women. In particular, they started following and stalking the complainant and her friend.They also shouted lewd remarks from their car and the co-accused even got out of the car and gestured the complainant and her friend to sit inside, as per the police case..The Police later chargesheeted the accused.In 2017, the trial court convicted them under Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the court adopted a lenient view against the accused in the matter of punishment and granted them the benefit of probation. Thus, the petitioner Karan only challenged his conviction before the lower appellate court. The appeal was dismissed in 2018, leading to filing of the present revision petition before the High Court..The conviction was mainly challenged on two grounds - the investigating officer was himself the complainant in the case and that no specific role was attributed to the petitioner. After examining the records, the Court concluded that both the accused were in the car at the time of incident and rejected the contention that the petitioner, being the driver, could not have been held liable..It also turned down the plea regarding the investigating officer also being the complainant in the case, saying there was no evidence to show that the victim and police had connived to falsely implicate the petitioner.“Merely, because the FIR was lodged on account of statement of the investigating officer and not the victim cannot be a ground for acquittal, especially when no material is brought before the Court by the petitioner to show that the investigating officer harboured any ill-will, malice or hostility towards him,” the Court said..The Court further said the petitioner had failed to point out any material discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses or any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the court below.Thus, it found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it.Advocates NS Gill and Munish Gupta represented the petitionerAdditional Public Prosecutor Vivek Singla represented the UT Chandigarh[Read Judgment]