In a significant judgment upholding a woman’s right to dignity and safety, a Delhi court has convicted a man under Sections 506 (Part II) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code for issuing rape threats and sending obscene, abusive messages intended to insult a woman’s modesty.
The case involved the accused sending vulgar and threatening messages to the complainant via WhatsApp, including sexually explicit and derogatory remarks. The court noted that such language was not mere abuse but a targeted attack on the woman’s dignity and character. “The term ‘R**’ is not a casual insult—it carries sexual overtones and impugns the woman’s morality. Such language shocks the conscience of any reasonable person,” the court observed.
Citing landmark rulings like Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill and State of Punjab v. Major Singh, the court reiterated that a woman’s modesty is intimately linked to her gender, and any speech or act that insults this modesty is punishable under law. “This case meets the legal threshold under Section 509 IPC,” the judge noted.
The woman also alleged that the accused threatened to rape and kill her if she did not comply with his demands. Threats like “Darwaza nahi khola toh goli maar dunga” were deemed as serious criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC. The court emphasized that these were not empty threats but acts that instilled genuine fear in the victim.
While testifying in his defence, the accused admitted that the messages were sent from his mobile number, though he claimed they arose from a rent dispute. However, he did not deny the obscene content. His admission was recorded under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that facts admitted need not be proved further.
The defence attempted to challenge the prosecution on procedural grounds—such as the lack of Call Detail Records or IMEI verification. The court, however, dismissed these objections, noting that the key evidence—the WhatsApp messages—were admitted by the accused himself. “Minor lapses in the investigation do not undermine the core of the case when supported by clear testimony and the accused’s own admission,” the court said.
Clarifying the scope of Section 509 IPC, the court held that while not every insult qualifies as an insult to modesty, words capable of “shocking the sense of decency of a woman” fall squarely within the ambit of the provision. It reiterated that modesty, though undefined in IPC, is commonly understood as a woman’s propriety of behaviour.
Quoting Rupan Deol Bajaj, the court said the real test is whether the accused’s actions or words could reasonably be perceived as outraging a woman’s modesty. In this case, the answer was a clear yes.
The court ultimately held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for criminal intimidation under Section 506 (Part II) and for using language intended to insult the modesty of a woman under Section 509 IPC.
