Sexual harassment case will not prima facie stand if woman was wearing provocative dress: Kerala Court

A Kozhikode court has held that a case of sexual harassment complaint Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will not prima facie stand if the woman was wearing a “sexually provocative dress” [Civic Chandran @ C V Kuttan v State of Kerala]..Sessions Judge, S Krishna Kumar, observed that to attract the offence under Section 354, there must be some unwelcome sexual advances but that in the instant case, the photographs of the complainant showed her "exposing herself in provocative dresses".“In order to attract this Section, there must be a physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be sexually colored remarks. The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one (sic). So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused," the Court said. .The Court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to activist and author, Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case..The Court further opined that it is impossible to believe that Chandran, a physically disabled man in his 70's, would have been able to sexually assault the complainant."Even admitting that there was physical contact it is impossible to believe that a man having aged 74 and physically disabled can forcefully put the defacto complainant in his lap and sexually press her breast. So it is a fit case wherein the accused can be granted bail,” the order said. .The prosecution case was that while the de-facto complainant was attending a camp convened by Chandran, he caught her hand and forcefully took her to a lonely place and sexually assaulted her.Chandran was booked under Sections 354A(2) (sexual harassment), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC..Counsel for Chandran contended that it is a false case cooked up by some of his enemies to ruin his reputation and also pointed out that there was a delay of over two years in lodging the complaint. Some photographs that the complainant put up on her social media accounts were produced to show that she wears what was argued to be sexually provocative clothes.It was further pointed out that the complainant was with her boyfriend at the camp and that many persons were present at the time the incident allegedly occurred..The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by contending that the accused is in the habit of molesting women and that this is the second sexual harassment case..The Court, however, allowed Chandran's plea and granted him anticipatory bail..On August 2, Chandran was granted anticipatory bail in another case against him involving offences under Sections 354 (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 354A(1)(ii), 354 D(2) of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Protection of Atrocities) Act 1989..Chandran was represented by advocates PV Hari and Sushama M. [Read Order]