The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court, led by Justice MG Sewlikar, has ruled that touching any part of a woman’s body by a stranger without her consent is a violation of her modesty. The ruling followed an appeal filed by a man against a trial court order which sentenced him to jail for a year for inappropriately touching a woman while she was asleep.
The victim in the original case had lodged an FIR on July 5, 2014 stating that on July 4, she and her grandmother-in-law were at home while her husband had gone to another village. The accused, who was her neighbour, had come around to inquire about her husband. The victim told the accused that her husband would not return for the night, after which, she went to sleep without bolting the door from the inside. At around 11pm, the victim sensed that someone was touching her feet, and on waking up, she realised it was the accused. He fled when she started shouting, and the woman informed her husband about it telephonically. The next day, after the husband returned, the FIR was lodged.
During the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer, Pratik Bhosle, even argued that by not bolting the door, the accused had entered with the consent of the woman. Bhosle had further argued that the accused had only touched her feet, and this did not have any sexual intent.
On hearing these arguments, Justice Sewlikar said that “the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty (of a woman) has been outraged is the action of the offender, such as it could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.” The bench then added that the accused’s act “was capable of shocking sense and decency of any woman.”
“In the case at hand, accused was sitting at the feet of the victim and had touched her feet and was sitting on her cot. This behaviour smacks of sexual intent. Otherwise, there was no reason for the accused to be in the house of the victim at such an odd hour of the night,” the court said in its ruling. “Moreover, touching any part of the body of a woman without her consent, that too in the dead hour of the night by a stranger, amounts to violation of modesty of a woman. The accused did not enter the house of the victim with any sublime motive. He had ensured in the evening from the victim that her husband would not be present in the house on that night. Therefore, the accused ventured to enter the house. This clearly indicates that the accused had gone there with sexual intent and violated the modesty of the informant. Therefore, the learned trial court did not commit any error in holding that the accused had molested the woman,” the court added.
*Image used for representative purpose.