The Bombay High Court recently stated while reversing a conviction of a man accused of sexual harassment. The dignity of women has to be protected at all costs, which doesn’t absolve the prosecution of its duty to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
A bench headed by Justice Bharati Dangre quashed and set aside a judgment passed by the special court which convicted and sentenced a man to 2 years imprisonment for assaulting his minor girlfriend in public because she wanted to end her relationship with him.
Therefore, the special court convicted the man for offenses 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 failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused to acquit him.
The Court held that “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 its case beyond reasonable doubt and, since the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden on it, the benefit must necessarily go to the accused.”
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 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 the phone and sent text messages.
Later, the accused 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 the presence of her friends.
Therefore, the assault happened after the girl stated that she didn’t 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 2 rape cases pending against him. After a trial of fewer 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.
Also, the judge noted several inconsistencies and omissions in the girl’s depositions which led to the evidence losing credibility.
The Court stated that “These omissions are proved through the investigating officer and on the omissions being proved, the case of the prosecution loses its credibility to a great extent and calls for close scrutiny of the girl’s version.”
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 stated that no such incident happened in her presence, and thus didn’t support the girl’s inconsistent version.
The Court held that “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.”
