News Date:
Mumbai: In sexual crimes against women, while the dignity of woman has to be protected at all cost, that does not absolve the prosecution of its duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Bombay High Court said while reversing a conviction of a man accused of sexual harassment [Samir Rajesh Sathe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].
Single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre quashed and set aside a judgment passed by a special court which had convicted and sentenced a man to two years imprisonment for assaulting his minor girlfriend in public because she wanted to end her relationship with him.
The special court had convicted the man for offences punishable under Sections 354 (outraging modesty of the woman) and 354-A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
While setting aside the order, Justice Dangre observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused to acquit him.
“True it is that dignity of a woman is to be protected at any cost, but that itself do not absolve the prosecution of establishing it’s case beyond reasonable doubt and, since the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden caste on it, the benefit must necessarily go to the accused,” the Court held.
The man was 22 years old and the girl was 17 years old when the alleged incident took place. They were residing in the same locality and were in a relationship. The girl had stated that when she came to know that the man had been in prison for a year, she started avoiding him and wanted to end the relationship. However, the man called her over phone and sent text messages.
The accused later asked her to come for a final meeting, and they met in February 2022. During the meeting, the man allegedly started checking the girl’s phone and on the suspicion that she may be cheating, started assaulting her in presence of her friends.
The assault happened after the girl stated that she did not want to be in a relationship with him.
The girl filed a complaint before the police and claimed that the man was a habitual offender with two rape cases pending against him.
After a trial of less than 6 months, the special POCSO judge convicted the man opining that the punishment would have a deterrent effect.
On appeal by the accused, Justice Dangre noted that the girl had known the accused for over 2 years and was in a relationship with him.
The judge also noted the several inconsistencies and omissions in the girl’s depositions which led to the evidence losing credibility.
“These omissions are proved through the investigating officer and on the omissions being proved, the case of the prosecution loses it’s credibility to a great extent and call for close scrutiny of the girl’s version,” the Court said.
It also relied on the deposition given by the girl’s friend who was allegedly present at the time of the incident. The friend in her deposition said that no such incident happened in her presence, and thus did not support the girl’s inconsistent version.
“The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant herself, has clearly created a huge dent in the prosecution case. The occurrence of the incident itself is doubtful and the special judge has fallen in grave error in not accepting the fact that the two were in a relationship,” the Court held.
Hence, it set aside the conviction.
