CHANDIGARH: Indira Jaising, senior Supreme Court lawyer last week vehemently argued that the testimony of Rupan Deol Bajaj, complainant in the Gill Bajaj case, does not need any corroborative evidence and was sufficient to convict former Punjab police chief K.P.S. Gill for slapping her posterior at a dinner party held in the house of the then Financial Commissioner (Home), S.L. Kapur in July 1986.
At the very outset of final arguments, Jaising, counsel for Rupan Bajaj, a senior woman IAS officer in Punjab government argued before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darshan Singh, as to what constitutes an offence under Sections 354 assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage the modesty by word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. She said that outraging the modesty is a gender offence and available to the woman only. Rupan should be treated as a representative of women and not as a mere complainant.
Quoting various Supreme Court judgments, she demanded conviction of Gill on the ground that there was convincing evidence with regard to the prima facie finding of the Apex court of “indecent behavior” and ordering the prosecution of high profile, DGP, K.P.S. Gill on charges of outraging her modesty. Both these offences are punishable with a maximum of two years simple imprisonment or fine or both. She further stated that “the court should not look for corroborations as it would add an insult to the injuries already caused to her client.”
Referring to the examination in chief of Rupan, she’ said that her testimony should be accepted solely on the ground that she would not lie in the court when her reputation was also at stake. There was no legal compulsion to look for corroboration as evidence against the accused should be weighed and not counted for, she argued. Jaising contended that the accused should also be convicted on the ground that if a person of the rank and status of the DGP can commit such an offence, then the gentlemen who are working under her may also claim the same privilege while condemning the act of the accused she alleged that his lewd expressions and final act were against the common notions of the contemporary society and whether he had sexual over tones or not he had the knowledge that such an act would lead to outraging the modesty of a woman.
Jaising took the stand that Rupan had no intention to malign the reputation of Gill and if that was so she could have got the matter publicized in the press and would’ have gone to the police immediately after the incident. However, she reported the matter first to the host, then’ the Chief Secretary, RP. Ojha, Ribeiro and finally to the Governor. Rupan expected that her superiors. Would take action against the former DGP on the basis of her complaint, she contended.
Concluding her arguments, she submitted that Ray suppressed the truth in his statement by saying that he had reprimanded Gill for intoxication, which is contrary to his report. She said that the mere fact that Ray on earlier occasions had handled the cases of Gillis sufficient to reject his testimony in the court.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 31, 1996
