NEW DELHI: A Delhi court acquitted seven women accused of performing an obscene dance at a bar last year and causing annoyance to the public, stating that wearing small clothes is not a crime and dancing to songs cannot be punished, even if it is in public.
The court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neetu Sharma, in its 4 February judgment, noted that the prosecution failed to prove that any offence was committed in the case.
The court observed, “Now, neither wearing small clothes is a crime nor dancing to songs can be punished irrespective of whether such dance is done in public. It is only when the dance becomes annoying to others that the dancer can be punished.”
The court also acquitted the manager of the bar, who was accused of failing to properly maintain the CCTV cameras at the bar in violation of an order/notification issued by ACP, Pahar Ganj under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court stated that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to show that the notification was ever published or that the accused had actual knowledge of the order promulgated by the ACP.
The court noted that there was no allegation that the restaurant and bar in question were operating without a proper licence or in contravention of the provisions and guidelines issued by the government.
The case was registered on a complaint by a Delhi Police sub-inspector (SI) who claimed to be on patrolling duty in the area. The women were booked under Section 294 (Obscene acts and songs – Whoever to the annoyance of others) of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution alleged that the SI saw “some girls were dancing to obscene songs wearing small clothes.”
The court, taking note of the fact that the police officer nowhere claimed that the dance was annoying any other person, said that the two prosecution witnesses stated they went to the place for enjoyment and did not know anything about the case.
“It is clear that the police concocted a story but could not find support from the 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.
Noting that the SI failed to produce any duty roster or DD entry to show that he was actually on patrol at the relevant time in the concerned area, the court said the oral claim cannot be allowed to be accepted when he has not brought such a record.
Further questioning the police’s failure to make any public person join the investigation, the court said the area in question was not one where people would be unavailable.
“There would have been shops/houses in which several persons would be available. Nothing was prohibiting the police from asking persons of shops/houses; at least they could not have left without giving names and addresses. 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 the 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,” said the court.