A Mumbai Magistrate court has made headlines by convicting a local professor for retaliating against her molester, a decision that has sparked a conversation about the rights of individuals to defend themselves in the face of assault. The incident, which occurred on September 15, 2015, involved the professor and her neighbor, a 61-year-old man, who was also convicted and sentenced to a year in prison for his actions.
Also Read- Mumbai Court Dismisses TRP Manipulation Case Against Republic TV (lawchakra.in)
The court’s decision was articulated by Magistrate VJ Kore, who, while acknowledging the professor’s actions as a form of self-defense, emphasized the legal principle that individuals are not permitted to take the law into their own hands. Magistrate Kore stated,
“If, as per the defence of the accused, one presumed that the (man) molested her, then she has the remedy to lodge a complaint at the police station…… No one is permitted to take the law in one’s hand.”
This statement highlights the legal expectation for victims of molestation to seek justice through formal channels rather than personal retaliation.
Advocate Prashant Pawar, representing the professor, argued that her actions were justified under the category of private defense, as she was directly responding to the man’s molestation. However, the court rejected this argument, labeling it as an emotional appeal rather than a legal justification. Despite this, the court recognized the professor’s actions as a spontaneous response to anger, showing leniency by only imposing a fine of Rs 1000 on her.
The background of the case reveals a disturbing encounter where the molester, under the guise of cleaning the open passage outside his house, began throwing dust over the woman. When she objected, he allegedly resorted to using abusive language, hugging her, and touching her inappropriately. In retaliation, the woman struck the man with her umbrella, causing physical harm. The incident led both parties to file complaints against each other at the Kala Chowki police station, resulting in a joint trial.
Magistrate Kore, in convicting the senior citizen, underscored the inviolability of a woman’s autonomy, stating,
“No man is permitted even to touch the nail of a woman without her consent. Moreover, every woman has a sixth sense, and she knows when any man touches her body part the intention behind touching her. It is pertinent to note that no woman will come forward with such allegations without there being any substance.”
This statement reflects a recognition of the inherent understanding women have regarding the intentions behind unsolicited physical contact and the seriousness with which such allegations are made.
The court’s refusal to grant probation to the molester, sentencing him to one year of imprisonment, was based on the observation that
“Nowadays offences against women are increasing day by day. Women are not safe inside the house as well as outside the house.”
This decision sends a clear message about the judiciary’s stance on crimes against women and the importance of upholding their dignity and safety.
This case serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges faced by victims of molestation in navigating the legal system and the fine line between self-defense and taking the law into one’s own hands. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing the rights of individuals to protect themselves while ensuring that justice is served through appropriate legal channels.
Also Read- BREAKING|| Arvind Kejriwal Scam | Delhi Court Summons Chief Minister (lawchakra.in)
