Chit Chat restaurant incident in Silchar: Who committed more crimes and how criminal prosecution went missing

By barakbulletin On December 8, 2020 - 8:57 pm

Premtala is the heart of the town. If Premtala skips a beat, the entire Silchar city runs short of breath. The same Premtala witnessed one of the messiest evenings of recent time on November 22. A couple was inside a cabin at Chit Chat Family Restaurant and Cyber cafe. The girl, in her statement to Judicial Magistrate, said they were in a relationship for more than two years and got intimate while inside the cabin.

In her official statement to the court, she mentioned that a mob broke into the cabin and started filming them while they weren’t even wearing full clothes. “The mob identified themselves as members of Bajrang Dal,” she said in her statement to the court. The Police, however, did not reveal any identity of the mob that entered the restaurant and vandalised it.

Within minutes of that incident, the girl’s videos were put on social media and those fetched hundreds of shares. A video featuring a Silchar girl went viral on social media. In the video the girl is trying to cover herself with whatever clothes she could find, but the mob was snatching the clothes and filming her.

So, who is the bigger criminal?

India is a democracy governed by the Rule of Law. Rule of Law asserts that there shall equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Based on the allegations we have in the public domain, let us venture to understand the penal violations that the aforesaid mob has committed. But before that, let’s make it clear, the couple also committed a crime.

Here is what the couple is guilty of. The alleged act of the couple can be prosecuted under Section 294 of the IPC. The particular section criminalizes obscene acts in public. If found guilty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both..

Now here is what the Mob might have violated

1) Section 354 C – Voyeurism

Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Under this Section, the maximum punishment is of 7 years of imprisonment.

2) Section 509

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fineThus, the maximum imprisonment here is 3 years.

3) 509B. Sexual harassment by electronic mode.

Whoever, by means of telecommunication device or by any other electronic mode including internet, makes creates, solicits or initiates the transmission of any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication, which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with intent to harass or cause or having knowledge that it would harass or cause annoyance or mental agony to a woman shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

Another 2 years of maximum punishment.

4) Section 354- Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Another 2 years of maximum imprisonment.

5) Section 354 A (1) (iv)

“making sexually coloured remarks shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment”

Punishment under this provision extends up to 1 year of imprisonment

6) Section 141 read with Section 143

Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

7) Section 441 read with Section 447 Criminal trespass.—

Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass

447. Punishment for criminal trespass.—Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

8) Section 425 read with section 426 Section 425:- Mischief

Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.

Section 426 – Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

9) Section 441:- Criminal trespass
Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.

Section 447:- Punishment for criminal trespass

Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

10) 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

“Prima facie, the penal violations are sufficiently grave and serious so as to warrant immediate arrest of all the culprits of the incident. It is unfortunate that the police haven’t made a single arrest in the case so far. The police administration remains answerable to the citizens of Silchar whether their commitment to enforcement of law and order is prejudiced in favour of individuals of a certain political outfit,” said a lawyer on condition of anonymity.

“The Chit Chat incident is a blot on the civilised and cultured atmosphere of Silchar town. It remains to be seen whether police acts on the allegations of such grave violations of the laws of the land,” asserted another lawyer.

“We are setting a really wrong example. After the girl’s statement to the Judicial Magistrate, it is clear that whatever they were doing inside the cabin was consensual however, the video filmed was an act of force. Court, District Administration, Police, all of them can take Suo Moto cognizance of the incident and file a case. As it stands now, it seems the system has been arm-twisted by a mob,” said a professor.

A senior officer in the Cachar Police department countered the criticism by saying, “Police alone cannot stop moral policing. Society needs to play a role. It is easy to anonymously criticise, why don’t they act like watchdogs and go and file an FIR? It takes more than a few social media posts for the Police to take Suo Moto actions. In this particular case, the investigation is going on.”

Please note: The story has been filed in consultation with lawyers.