Representative image

NEW DELHI: Showing the middle finger to a woman can land you in jail, according to a recent court judgment. In this case, a man has been found guilty of gesturing at a woman with his middle finger besides making obscene facial expressions.

“This undeniably amounts to making utterances or gestures intending to insult the modesty of a woman,” metropolitan magistrate Vasundhara Azad observed. The accused, the brother-in-law of the complainant, now stares at a maximum punishment of three years in jail and a fine.

On May 21, 2014, the woman filed a complaint alleging the man had showed her his middle finger besides passing lewd remarks and also physically hurting her. Following an investigation, police booked the man under IPC sections 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman) and 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt).

On October 8, 2015, the court framed charges against the man, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses, including the complainant. In her testimony, she reiterated the allegations and claimed that the man had also slapped her.

But the man continued to oppose all allegations, claiming the case was the result of a property dispute between them, and sought to examine his sister in his defence. The witness testified that her brother was at home the whole day and the woman had lodged a false complaint.

While dealing with the allegation of outraging modesty, the judge noted that the complainant had “specifically stated in her testimony” that the accused showed her his middle finger, made obscene facial expressions towards her and also passed lewd remarks. Highlighting the woman’s medico-legal case (MLC) report, which showed a “linear bruise”, the court held, “The consistent testimony of the woman regarding hurt caused to her has been duly corroborated by her MLC.”

The court also did not find any evidence about the property dispute claim, which was rejected by the woman. “There is no material on record to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant,” the court said. A conviction, the judge said, could be based on the sole testimony of the survivor if the same was “trustworthy”, “reliable” and “worthy of credence”. “It is quality, not quantity or number of witnesses, that matters,” she pointed out.

The court also rejected the defence witness’ testimony as she was not at home at the time of the incident while she claimed her brother was. All essential elements against the man were proved beyond reasonable doubt, it said. “Accused stands convicted,” said judge Azad. The court will hear arguments on the quantum of sentence on Tuesday.

Read this report in Bengali

