Court acquits two men in 2016 attempted murder case

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a woman’s choice of clothing is a personal matter and cannot be used to justify or accuse men of misconduct. In a landmark judgment delivered on Monday, the court dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of a man accused of sexually harassing a 17-year-old girl. The case originated from a July 2013 incident in which the accused allegedly made inappropriate remarks to the girl and touched her cheek and hip. The trial court acquitted him in August 2014, citing the complainant’s attire as a factor in the defense’s argument. The court emphasized that a woman’s choice of attire, such as wearing jeans, does not constitute a justification for unlawful behavior. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha-led bench noted that such claims reflect a regressive and harmful mindset. The court condemned the idea that a woman’s clothing could “corrupt young boys,” describing it as a deeply troubling and unacceptable perspective. It clarified that questions about a woman’s dress during legal proceedings are irrelevant and should not be allowed to undermine her dignity or serve as a tool for character assassination. The ruling came in response to the state’s challenge to the trial court’s decision. The appeal was filed following the acquittal of the accused under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). During the trial, the accused argued that local residents, whom he described as orthodox, had objected to the girl’s clothing and had even lodged a complaint with the police. He further claimed that the girl, with the assistance of a police sub-inspector with whom she was allegedly in a relationship, had fabricated the allegations against him due to his criminal record. The court examined the defense’s arguments and found them rooted in prejudice. Defense counsel had repeatedly questioned the victim about her clothing, including what she wore when visiting a doctor and whether she typically wore “Western tight clothes.” These inquiries were deemed wholly irrelevant and improper. The court criticized the cross-examination for aiming to embarrass, humiliate, and morally judge the victim based on her appearance. It stated that such questioning should have been disallowed by the trial judge at the beginning of the proceedings. The judgment underscored that the responsibility to ensure respectful conduct lies with individuals, particularly children, rather than with women who choose their clothing. The court urged parents and society to educate children to respect personal boundaries and treat others with dignity. It reiterated that what a woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal freedom and that no one, including neighbors, society, or legal representatives, has the right to impose restrictions on her clothing choices. The court also highlighted that the defense’s focus on the victim’s attire reflected broader societal attitudes that perpetuate gender-based discrimination. It called for a shift in mindset, emphasizing that the root of the problem lies not in regulating women’s clothing but in fostering a culture of accountability and respect among all members of society. The ruling serves as a clear message that legal proceedings should not be influenced by outdated norms or stereotypes about women’s dress.