"Woman Groped On Street Can't Be Prosecuted As Participant To Crime": Mumbai Court On Shilpa Shetty's Discharge In Richard Gere Kissing Case

A woman being groped on the streets cannot be prosecuted as a participant to the crime, the Sessions Court observed while upholding actor Shilpa Shetty’s discharge in a 2007 obscenity case involving Richard Gere kissing her at a public event.

“A woman being groped on the street or touched on a public way or in public transport cannot be termed as accused or participative to an extent of mental culpability and she cannot be held for illegal omission to make her liable for prosecution,” Additional Sessions Judge SC Jadhav observed.

In January 2022, a Magistrate's court in Mumbai discharged Shetty from the case and observed that Shetty appears to be a victim of Gere's acts and that even a single element of any of the alleged offence wasn't satisfied.

The original complainant filed the criminal revision application in the Session Court against her discharge. Shetty claimed she is a victim of malicious proceedings and harassment at the hands of the original complainant in the case. She further sought heavy costs to be imposed on the original complainant in the case for the harassment.

The case pertains to an incident from 15 years ago, wherein co-accused Hollywood Actor Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty were at an AIDS awareness event in outer Delhi on April 15, 2007. During the event Gere kissed Shetty on her cheeks to spread awareness that kissing was a safe act that could not lead to transmission of HIV.

Following the incident, Shetty and Gere were both booked under Sections 292, 293, 294, 120-B of IPC, Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

After the magistrate's order, the Rajasthan police approached the Sessions Court against Shetty's discharge in the form of a criminal revision application.

In her reply, Shetty sought dismissal of the revision application. None of the sections would be applicable to her, she said.

The case, originally registered in Alwar in Rajasthan, was transferred to Mumbai by the Supreme Court on an application moved by Shetty.

The Sessions Court observed that an act  per se indecent and obscene would not warrant prosecution under Section 294 IPC in absence of prima facie material of annoyance by any of the persons.  

“The two ingredient to make them liable for prosecution are 1) Obscene act and 2) annoyance to the person. It is unsaid fact that the present respondent had not kissed but was kissed. Obscenity on her part is not evident. There is nothing on record to elaborate on the prima facie evidence of annoyance by complainant. "Indecent representation of women" as defined in The Indecent Representation Act means the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman; her form or body or any part thereof in such way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, or denigrating women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals,” the court observed.