Man jailed for cat-calling woman in India: ‘This word objectifies women’

‘Such offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand as lesson needs to be meted out to road-side Romeos’

A court in India handed a one-and-a-half-year jail term to a businessman for catcalling and stalking a woman and branding her an “item” – a derogatory term used to sexualise women.

The case, registered seven years ago, was made by a then-minor against Abrar Khan and his friends.

The complainant, who cannot be identified due to laws aimed at protecting the identity of sexual harassment survivors, told the court in Mumbai that Khan would stalk her.

On 14 July 2015, when the survivor, then aged 16, was returning from her school, Khan stopped her, pulled her hair and asked her where she was going while referring to her as an “item”. As she asked him to back off, he began hurling abuse at her, prompting her to call a police helpline.

The accused fled the spot by the time police arrived and subsequently managed to secure an anticipatory bail against the accused.

Khan’s counsel argued that his client was falsely implicated by the girl, submitting that they were friends and the case was filed because the survivor’s family was not happy with their relationship.

The court however sided with the complainant upon finding her testimony more persuasive, as it concluded that the accused did not know each other, adding that "it was wholly inappropriate of the accused to act in the way in which he did, which act qualifies as using criminal force to her”.

Declining the defence request to release him on good behaviour, the special court assigned to hear cases of sexual violence involving minors, noted: “Item is a term used generally by boys to address girls in a derogatory fashion as it objectifies them in a sexual manner, the same will clearly indicate his intention of outraging her modesty.”

“Such offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand as a lesson needs to be meted out to such roadside Romeos, in order to protect the women from their uncalled for behaviour,” noted special judge SJ Ansari.

“Consequently, there does not arise any question of granting the benefit of probation to the accused or showing unwarranted leniency to him.”