A Delhi court has freed seven women accused of dancing “obscenely” in a bar, ruling that neither wearing small clothes nor dancing is a crime unless it annoys others. The judge criticized the police for making up a false case without public support or proper evidence. The court also acquitted the bar manager, stating that there was no proof of any rule violation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has freed seven women who were blamed for dancing in a bar in an “obscene” way and disturbing the public last year.
The police from Paharganj station had filed a case against these women under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. This law says that any “obscene” act in a public place that annoys others is a crime.
ALSO READ: “Being Customers in a Bar Where Women Are Dancing Is Not Obscene”: Bombay HC
But Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neetu Sharma from Tis Hazari Courts said the police could not prove that any crime happened in this case.
“Now, neither wearing small clothes is a crime nor dancing on songs can be punished irrespective of whether such dance is done in public. It is only when the dance becomes annoying to other than the dancer can be punished,”
–the judge said in her judgment on February 4.
This case started when a Sub-Inspector (SI) filed a complaint. He said that while patrolling, he went inside the bar and saw some girls dancing on “obscene songs wearing small clothes.”
However, the court pointed out that the police officer never mentioned if anyone was actually annoyed by the dance. It also found that two witnesses from the prosecution said they had gone there just for fun and knew nothing about the case.
“It is clear that the police concocted a story but could not find support from public. In such circumstances, even if we accept the claim of SI Dharmender, the same will not establish the ingredient of the offence,”
–the court said.
The court also noted that the SI did not show any proof, like a duty roster or a police diary entry (DD entry), to confirm that he was really on patrol at that time and place.
“A police officer who is on duty can leave the police station only by way of DD entry and not otherwise. Since, a documentary proof is bound to exist for showing the availability of PW1 in the area, the oral claim cannot be allowed to be accepted when he has not brought such a record,”
–the court said.
Another important point raised by the court was why the police did not involve any common people in the investigation. The court said that the place was not deserted, and there would have been shops and houses nearby.
“There would have been shops/house in which several persons would be available. Nothing was prohibiting the police from asking persons of shops/houses, atleast they could not have left without giving names & address. Police did not do so. As far as customers are concerned, the police could have taken action against those persons who refused. Section-65 of Delhi Police Act clearly says that every person is bound to comply with the directions of police and if he refuses, he may be produced before a Magistrate. Police witnesses nowhere claim that they ever made any such effort. Clearly, they are not reliable witnesses and appear to have concocted a story,”
–the court said.
The court also freed the bar manager, who was accused of not keeping the CCTV cameras in working condition, which was against an order given by the ACP, Paharganj, under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court said the police did not give any proof that this order was officially announced or that the bar manager knew about it.
It also noted that there was no complaint that the bar was running illegally or breaking any government rules.
“Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence being adduced in this regard, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused as there is settled proposition of law, that where two views possible one favouring the accused should be adopted,”
–the court concluded.
ALSO READ: “Right To Sleep Upheld as Fundamental Right”: Bombay HC to ED
CASE TITLE:
STATE Vs. REKHA & ORS.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
