The Single Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice M. G. Sewlikar opined that touching any part of the body of a woman without her consent that too in the dead hour of the night by a stranger amounts to violation of her modesty.
Facts
Victim lodged report alleging therein that she and her grandmother-in-law were the only persons in their house as husband of the victim had gone to village. Applicant/accused lives in the house adjacent to the house of the victim. On 4th July 2014 at about 8.00 pm, applicant had been to victim’s house and inquired as to when her husband would be returning. Victim answered that he would not be returning in the night. It was further alleged that the victim had closed the main door and without bolting the door from inside she and her grandmother-in-law went off to sleep. At about 11.00 pm the victim sensed that someone was touching her feet and found the accused/applicant sitting near her feet on her bed. Victim shouted because of which her grandmother-in-law woke up and also raised shouts. Thereafter, the applicant ran away. Neighbours gathered on hearing shouts. Thereafter, the victim informed her husband telephonically about the incident. The next day morning her husband returned and thereafter she lodged the police report against the accused.
Procedural History
Charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty to it and claimed to be tried. His defence is of total denial. It is also his defence that he was not present at the spot of the incident. Order was passed by the learned J.M.F.C. convicting the applicant of the offence punishable u/s 451 of the IPC., sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 451 of the IPC. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months of the offence punishable under Section 354-A (i) of the IPC. The same was confirmed by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Contentions Made
Appellant: Applicant was not present at the spot of the incident. The door was not bolted from inside. There was delay of almost 12 hours in lodging the FIR for which no explanation was forthcoming. Considering all these aspects both the Courts committed grave error in convicting the accused. Reliance was placed on Hemraj s/o Fulchand Patle vs State of Maharashtra and Kailash s/o Somaji Khodkar reported in 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 372.
Respondent: They supported the impugned judgments.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
They further observed that:
“So far as the incident is concerned, victim has deposed about the incident which is corroborated by her grandmother-in-law. Victim has stated that when she woke up, she found the applicant sitting on her cot at her feet. This behaviour smacks of sexual intent. Otherwise, there was no reason for the applicant to be in the house of the victim at such an odd hour of the night. The applicant did not enter the house of the victim with any sublime motive. He had ensured in the evening from the victim that her husband would not be present in the house in the night. Therefore, the applicant ventured to enter the house. This clearly indicates that the applicant had gone there with sexual intent and violated the modesty of the informant.”
The victim explained that the bolt of the door was not functioning properly, due to which the door was not bolted from inside.
Judgment
The Bench could not find any infirmity in the order by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Hence, the revision application was dismissed.
Case Name: Parmeshwar Muktiram Dhage vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: Criminal Revision Application No. 108 of 2021
Bench: Justice M. G. Sewlikar
Decided on: 24th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :