Eve teasing must be curbed, could lead to other serious offences: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that there is a need to keep in check rising instances of eve teasing, more so since it could lead to other serious offences [Eknath Shinde vs State of Maharashtra]..The Court was dealing with appeals by three men challenging their conviction and sentence for killing a man after he confronted one of the convicts for eve teasing a girl in his neighbourhood. .A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak noted that eve teasing could lead to more serious offences like murder. In the present case, the bench pointed out that the appellants had killed an innocent young man who only wanted to correct an instance of eve teasing."There is a need to keep under control such instances of teasing young girls, which are common and often becomes reason for another offence and sometimes to serious one. Therefore, stringent punishment should be imposed on the accused persons for the offence of section 304 (Part II)," the Court said in an order pronounced on March 8..As per the prosecution's case, on May 3, 2012, one of the appellants, Abhijit Sangare teased a girl who informed her mother about the same. Thereafter, the mother informed about it to her brother, who further asked another neighbour, the deceased, to go to the spot. The deceased went to the spot along with the girl's mother and asked Abhijit not to indulge in eve teasing. Thereafter, the deceased brought the victim girl to her house. After a few hours, the appellant, Abhijit is said to have come to the deceased man's house along with two others, Eknath Laxman Shinde and Bhaishya Pardeshi (other appellants). The trio then started assaulting the deceased with iron rods and a wooden log. The deceased sustained severe injuries on head and was admitted to a nearby hospital. While he was being treated, he succumbed to the injuries and passed away on May 11, 2012. The three accused were later found guilty of murder by a trial court, and sentenced to life imprisonment for their crime. This verdict was then challenged by the three men before the High Court. .The High Court noted that the injury to the head of the deceased did not prove fatal right away as the deceased survived for around seven days after the incident. "These circumstances clearly indicate that even though the accused persons were carrying two weapons, they restricted themselves to only one injury on the vital part of the body (head) and that too without exercising much force, otherwise there would have been at least a fracture to the scull like to the right tibia-fibula. The deceased died due to complications following the head injury," the bench said.The Court added that these circumstances clearly indicated that the homicidal death of the deceased was without premeditation. It followed injuries sustained in a sudden fight, without the accused persons having taken undue advantage of defenceless condition of the deceased or acting in cruel or unusual manner, the Court said. The Court further noted that it was not certain as to which of the accused dealt the blow to the deceased man's head. The Court concluded that the appellants should be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, instead of the offence of murder. "Therefore, we find it difficult to conclude that the injury to head was caused intentionally. However, looking to the external and internal nature of the head injury coupled with the fracture caused to the right leg of the deceased, it is safe to conclude that the injury to the head was inflicted with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. Therefore, the homicidal death of the deceased is not murder," the bench opined. With these observations, the bench altered the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Their sentence was modified from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of ₹25,000 each. .Advocates Daulat Khamkar, Aashay Topiwala and Vrushabh Savla appeared for the appellants. Additional Public Prosecutor AA Takalkar represented the State..[Read Judgment]