Following and abusing woman a few times will not attract offence of outraging modesty: Bombay High Court
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Bombay High Court’s recent judgment, delivered by Justice Anil Pansare, has sparked a significant debate on the legal interpretation of ‘outraging the modesty’ of a woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This ruling, which overturned the convictions of a lower court, has brought into focus the nuances of legal definitions and the evidentiary standards required in such cases.
The case revolved around a 36-year-old man from Wardha, accused of following, verbally abusing, and physically pushing a college student while riding his bicycle. The woman alleged that the man had repeatedly followed and abused her on several occasions. Initially, the Magistrate Court convicted the man in 2016, sentencing him to two years of imprisonment. This conviction was later upheld by the Sessions Court, although the sentence was suspended, and the man was subsequently granted bail.
In a significant statement, Justice Pansare noted,
“The act of following and abusing the complainant cannot be said to be capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman.”
This observation challenges the traditional understanding of what actions might constitute the outraging of a woman’s modesty.
Also Read:- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Article 370
Further elaborating on the physical aspect of the case, Justice Pansare remarked,
“The contact with the part of the body of the complainant woman has not been stated by her. In these circumstances, merely because the appellant has on bicycle given a push to her, to my mind, cannot be said to be an act which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of the complainant. It may be an offensive or annoying act but cannot be said to be compromising the decency of a woman.”
The judge’s decision to acquit the man was also influenced by the lack of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant’s statement.
The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court’s below have committed error in not applying the law to the admitted facts and thus rendered incorrect findings,”
He pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence presented was not sufficient to meet the legal threshold required under Section 354 of the IPC.
Also Read:- Kerala’s Supreme Court Challenge: Seeking Clear Guidelines for Governor’s Bill Approval Process
Justice Pansare’s ruling has raised critical questions about the legal thresholds for determining what constitutes an act of outraging a woman’s modesty. The decision to acquit, based on the interpretation that the actions were annoying but not indecent, has led to discussions on the complexities of legal interpretations in cases of alleged harassment.
The judgment has also highlighted the challenges in balancing the rights of the accused with the protection of victims in cases of alleged sexual harassment. The court’s emphasis on the need for concrete evidence and the specific nature of the act in question underscores the intricate legal standards that govern such cases.
Also Read:- Madras High Court Upholds Equality in Polygamous Marriages
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s judgment represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing conversation about women’s safety, legal protections against harassment, and the interpretation of laws related to outraging modesty. It underscores the complexities involved in legal interpretations of actions perceived as violating a woman’s modesty and the evidentiary standards required to uphold convictions in such cases. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for future cases and the broader discourse on gender-based violence and legal justice.