Delhi court convicts man for using the word ‘r***i’ and issuing threats, calling it an insult to a woman’s modesty. Court says such words imply disloyalty and promiscuity, amounting to criminal offence.
New Delhi: Today, on July 16, a Delhi court has found a man named Vikrant Grewal guilty of using vulgar and threatening language to a woman, with the clear intention of insulting her modesty.
The case dates back to 2021 when the accused repeatedly harassed the woman over the phone and even came to her house to intimidate her.
Read Also: Bombay High Court’s Interpretation on ‘Outraging Modesty’ Under Scrutiny
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Harjot Singh Aujila of the Dwarka Courts, while convicting the accused, said that the term ‘randi’ (a derogatory word for sex worker) was highly insulting to any woman, especially one who is working hard and living with dignity.
The judge observed,
“The words uttered by the accused are ‘Darwaja khol de mujhe tere saath sex karna hai’, ‘Randi tujhe mai bataunga bahut samajhdar apne to samajahti hai’, ‘Randi Darwaja Khol de nahi to mai tujhe chodunga nahi’.”
The Court explained that the word ‘randi’ is not just a casual insult, but an attack on a woman’s character and dignity.
It said,
“The word Randi is not a word which is used simply to insult a person. The word is bound to insult the modesty of any hardworking woman. Especially, when this word is used to a woman, it denotes that the said woman is not loyal. Secondly, the words are not simple insult but it directly hits at the sex of a woman and it also shows that the word is intended to mean that the woman is promiscuous and it casts an aspersion on her character.”
Because of the use of such language, the court held that Vikrant Grewal had deliberately tried to insult the woman’s modesty.
Therefore, he was found guilty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with words or gestures intended to insult a woman’s modesty.
The court further found that the accused had issued serious threats to the woman, including rape and murder, in an attempt to force her to agree to his demands.
Read Also: Delhi HC Quashes Outrage of Modesty Case of 61 year Old Man, Orders Man to Plant 30 Trees
The court ruled,
“The accused used direct threats like ‘Darwaja nahi khola toh goli maar dunga’ which clearly amounts to criminal intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC,”
The woman, who was living with her husband and daughter in a rented house, filed a complaint after facing continuous harassment from Grewal.
She reported that he not only called her and used foul language but also visited her residence several times, insisting she open the door.
On the other hand, the accused’s lawyer argued that the entire case was false and that the woman had made up the story. They said there were contradictions in the evidence and no independent witness had seen the crime.
However, the Court did not accept these arguments. It said that the woman’s testimony was solid and consistent. Despite being cross-examined at length, she did not change her version of events.
The court stated,
“In fact, her truthfulness is bolstered by the voluntary admission of the accused himself as DW1, who conceded to having sent messages with offensive content, albeit trying to justify them based on a rent disagreement,”
Even though there were no other eyewitnesses, the Court said that the woman’s statement was strong enough to prove the case.
The judge noted,
“The testimony of PW1 is clear, cogent, reliable, trustworthy and she has not deviated from her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During the cross-examination, nothing material has come up in the testimony of PW1 so as to shake her credibility or impeach her credit,”
The defense also argued that the WhatsApp messages should not be accepted as evidence because a proper certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not provided. But the court rejected this point, saying that the accused had already admitted to sending the messages.
The court explained,
“He claimed that the messages were sent due to a rent dispute, but did not deny their vulgar nature. He also confirmed that he had no further contact with the complainant after the incident. He admitted that the mobile number used for sending messages belonged to him and the messages emanated from his phone. Thus, in lieu of section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, which states that facts admitted need not be proved, argument raised by the defense is rejected,”
Based on the evidence and the clear intent behind the accused’s words and actions, the court convicted him. The matter is now listed for sentencing on July 27.
The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Pankaj Gulia, and the accused was represented by Advocate Amit Chauhan.
Case Title:
State vs Vikrant Grewal
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Woman’s Modesty
