The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad bench recently dismissed a criminal revision application filed by one Parmeshwar Dhage (accused/convict/applicant) convicted by a trial court for touching the feet of a woman in her sleep and ruled that it amounts to violation of modesty of a woman, which is punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code if any one touches any part of a woman without her consent.
The single-judge bench of Justice M.G. Sewlikar said the accused/applicant was found to be sitting on the cot near the feet of the victim/respondent. This act of the applicant makes it clear that he was capable of shocking the sense of decency of any woman. This behaviour smacks of sexual intent. Or else, there was no reason for the accused to be found in the victim’s house at such hours.
The present case is that the complainant/victim and her grandmother-in-law were at home while the complainant’s husband was out of town. Around 8PM, Dhage came to her house and enquired about the complainant’s husband and she informed him that her husband had gone to another village and will not be returning for the night.
The complainant/victim went off to sleep closing the main door but without bolting the latch to her room. Later, around 11PM she sensed that someone is touching her feet. She woke up and screamed seeing the accused/convict sitting by her feet. Which woke up the grandmother-in-law and he ran away from the spot. A complaint was filed against the accused/convict when the complainant’s husband returned home, the next morning.
Also Read: Betelnut fraud: Bombay High Court asks Nagpur Police chief to initiate criminal action
Pratik Bhosle, the counsel for Dhage, submitted that the applicant was not present at the spot of the incident. The applicant is a resident of Jalna, said the advocate, and therefore was not at the spot. He further submitted that the door was not bolted from inside. Usually when women are alone in the house, they bolt the door from inside. The counsel also posed questions over the delay in filing the complaint which was delayed by 12 hours.
S.W. Munde, Additional Public Prosecutor, and the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/victim/respondent supported the judgment of the trial court where the court sentenced him to imprisonment for one year while convicting him for the offences committed under Sections 451 for house trespass and 354A for sexual harassment under IPC.
Also Read: Allahabad HC asks Uttar Pradesh DGP why appellant’s criminal history is not in public domain
The bench observed that the applicant/accused/convict did not enter the house of the victim with any sublime motive. In the evening itself, the accused made sure that her husband would not be present in the house that particular night. Therefore, the accused entered the house with sexual intent to violate the modesty of the informant/complainant/victim.
The court also accepted the submissions on behalf of the victim that the bolt was not working properly hence she did not bolt the latch to her room before sleeping.
The High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the lower and rejected the appeal and the criminal revision application at hand.
Also Read: Gauhati HC directs Kamrup DC to issue ration cards within 8 weeks to eligible slum-dwellers