New Delhi: A Delhi court has convicted a man for insulting a woman’s modesty over a seemingly casual remark, “Kaun se wale papa?”, made when she told her three-year-old daughter that her father had arrived to pick them up from school. Though the two had no prior dispute, the court held that the remark implied the woman had multiple partners and questioned the child’s paternity.Judicial magistrate first class Moksha Bains, in a Sept 24 judgment, said the remark was not an innocuous inquiry about the child’s father but carried an insinuation about the woman’s sexual propriety and fidelity. “The expression, when addressed to a woman in the aforesaid setting, is not an innocuous inquiry as to the identity of a person,” the judge observed, adding that its “obvious insinuation” was that there could be more than one man who could be described as the child’s father.The case dates back to March 23, 2021, when Priyanka Gupta was walking with her three-year-old daughter near RBI Enclave Gate in Paschim Vihar. As the child cried, Gupta told her, “Dekho papa aa gaye, don’t cry.” Girdhari Lal, who ran a clothes ironing cart at a street corner, then allegedly interjected, “Kaun se wale papa aa gaye?”Gupta initially ignored the remark and, about two minutes later, handed over the child to her husband after he arrived in a car. She later informed her father-in-law, who called the police, following which an FIR was registered at Paschim Vihar East police station under Section 509 IPC.In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, Lal admitted making the remark but claimed it was not made with any “ill intention”. He also alleged false implication, with the defence arguing that Gupta wanted him removed from the street corner where he had run his ironing business for seven years.Rejecting the defence, the court observed: “The explanation offered by the accused that the words were spoken without ‘ill intention’ is a bare assertion. No surrounding circumstance has been brought on record from which the remark could reasonably acquire an innocent meaning.”The court said every rude or offensive remark addressed to a woman would not automatically constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, as the insult must have the requisite nexus with her modesty. In this case, however, it held that the remark was personally directed at Gupta and made immediately after she referred to her child’s father, carrying a sexually derogatory insinuation concerning her relationship with men and the child’s paternity.The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted Lal under Section 509 IPC.
