TNN | Oct 6, 2011, 01.01AM IST
MUMBAI: A schoolgirl is unlikely to allege that she was molested to take revenge, stated the Bombay high court, while refusing to show any leniency to an Akola resident convicted of sexually harassing her.
"I find it difficult to digest that a schoolgirl will prefer to put her character at stake only to takerevenge on a shopkeeper or falsely implicate him," said Justice A P Bhangale, while upholding the thee-month jail term imposed on Vikas Ghodke, 29.
Ghodke's lawyer urged sympathy, saying that the accused was now married and a prison term would cause him irreparable suffering. "The object of punishment is to protect the society by stamping out the offender by imposing a stern sentence where it should be and tempered with mercy if it so warrants," said Justice Bhangale, adding, "It (the punishment) must also ensure the adequate deterrence for like-minded prospective offenders."
The court refused to interfere with the punishment handed out by the subordinate court. The incident goes back to February 2006, when the victim had gone to Ghodke's shop to buy a pen refill. According to the victim's complaint, Ghodke put his hand on her cheek and private parts.
Based on the victim's complaint, the police charged Ghodke under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging a woman's modesty. Ghodke's lawyers challenged the conviction claiming that there was a two-day delay in filing the FIR and that there were no independent witnesses to ascertain what had transpired.
The judges said that the delay was understandable. "When the family's honour is involved, kin of the victim would not like any stigma to be attached to her and the family. Delay in such a case is normal," said the judge.
Since the incident had taken place inside the shop, there could have been no independent witnesses, the court stated. "A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight," the judge observed.
"Mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient (to attract criminal charges)."
"I find it difficult to digest that a schoolgirl will prefer to put her character at stake only to takerevenge on a shopkeeper or falsely implicate him," said Justice A P Bhangale, while upholding the thee-month jail term imposed on Vikas Ghodke, 29.
Ghodke's lawyer urged sympathy, saying that the accused was now married and a prison term would cause him irreparable suffering. "The object of punishment is to protect the society by stamping out the offender by imposing a stern sentence where it should be and tempered with mercy if it so warrants," said Justice Bhangale, adding, "It (the punishment) must also ensure the adequate deterrence for like-minded prospective offenders."
The court refused to interfere with the punishment handed out by the subordinate court. The incident goes back to February 2006, when the victim had gone to Ghodke's shop to buy a pen refill. According to the victim's complaint, Ghodke put his hand on her cheek and private parts.
Based on the victim's complaint, the police charged Ghodke under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging a woman's modesty. Ghodke's lawyers challenged the conviction claiming that there was a two-day delay in filing the FIR and that there were no independent witnesses to ascertain what had transpired.
The judges said that the delay was understandable. "When the family's honour is involved, kin of the victim would not like any stigma to be attached to her and the family. Delay in such a case is normal," said the judge.
Since the incident had taken place inside the shop, there could have been no independent witnesses, the court stated. "A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight," the judge observed.
"Mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient (to attract criminal charges)."
No comments:
Post a Comment