A single judge, Justice Bharati Dangre, has overturned the conviction of Mayur Yelore on charges of trespassing (Section 451) and outraging the modesty of a woman (Section 354) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judge stated that the intention to outrage a woman’s modesty is crucial in determining such an offense. The prosecution did not accuse the accused of any action beyond moving his hand over the back and head of a 12-13-year-old victim. The victim did not speak of any malicious intent on his part but testified that she felt uncomfortable due to his unpleasant actions.
Justice Dangre pointed out that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence to prove that the defendant had a specific intention to outrage the modesty of the girl. Due to the absence of such an intention, the judge questioned how Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was invoked and upheld as proven based on the victim’s statement that she felt scared when the defendant touched her back and said that she had grown up.
The court bench commented that the defendant’s words suggest that he had known the victim since she was a child, hence his remark about her having grown up.
According to the prosecution’s account, on March 15, 2012, when the defendant was 18 years old, he visited the victim’s home while she was alone. He went there to deliver some documents. Upon entering the house, the girl reported that the defendant asked for a glass of water and sat down on a nearby chair. She gave him the water and continued working on her homework. The defendant then got up from the chair, approached her, ran his hands over her back and head, and commented that she had grown up.
However, the minor girl did not consent to the defendant’s actions and began shouting for help. The neighbors heard her cries and rushed to her aid, apprehending the defendant. The girl’s mother was informed and returned home, recognizing the defendant and allowing him to leave. Later, the girl visited the defendant’s home to warn him, but he allegedly threatened her. She then filed a First Information Report (FIR) against him, leading to his arrest and trial.
The defendant was convicted by a Magistrate court and received sentences of four months and six months for trespassing and outraging the modesty of the victim, respectively. This verdict was upheld by a Sessions Court before the defendant moved to the High Court.
Justice Dangre pointed out flaws in the testimonies of the victim, her mother, the neighbors, the investigating officer, and the constable who recorded the statements.
“The lower courts made a serious mistake in evaluating the witnesses’ testimony, which is riddled with inconsistencies, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The prosecution has not provided convincing and reliable evidence to establish that the defendant’s actions amounted to outraging the modesty of the victim,” noted the bench in its verdict.
The bench highlighted that the defendant’s actions did not meet the criteria for outraging modesty, as defined in section 350 of the IPC, as there was no assault or use of criminal force. The incident appeared to be a spur-of-the-moment act without any sexual motives. The Magistrate and Session Court made a mistake in interpreting the evidence and wrongly charged the defendant under section 354. The High Court concluded that the defendant did not have the intention to commit the offense of outraging the modesty of the victim girl, and therefore the charge of house trespass with the intent to commit an offense could not be sustained. As a result, the bench quashed the defendant’s conviction and sentence.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/moving-hands-over-minor-girls-back-head-saying-she-has-grown-up-not-outraging-modesty-bombay-high-court