Following and abusing woman a few times will not attract offence of outraging modesty: Bombay High Court

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that the act of following and abusing a woman is not capable to shock the sense of decency of woman and thus will not constitute the offence of outraging her modesty [Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail vs State of Maharashtra]..Single-judge Justice Anil Pansare further said such conduct can be annoying but will not be sufficient to "shock the decency of a woman". "The act of following and abusing the complainant cannot be said to be capable to shock the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman," the Court said in an order pronounced on December 16. The Court further said that the act of the appellant of pushing or shoving the complainant while he was riding his bicycle, will have to be considered keeping in mind his conduct of following and abusing her. The judge noted that the complainant had not alleged that the accused touched her inappropriately or had pushed her by touching any specific part of her body."The contact with the part of the body of the complainant woman has not been stated by her. In these circumstances, merely because the appellant has on bicycle given a push to her, to my mind, cannot be said to be an act which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of the complainant. It may be an offensive or annoying act but cannot be said to be compromising the decency of a woman," the Court underlined.Therefore, it opined that the Magistrate Court (which convicted the appellant) and also the Sessions Court (which dismissed appeal against conviction) erred in holding him guilty for offence punishable under Section 354 (outraging of modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .As per the prosecution case, the complainant-girl had deposed that the appellant had followed her couple of times and even abused her. On the day of the incident, while she was going to the market, the appellant who was following her on his bicycle, pushed her. She got annoyed but the applicant continued to follow her and therefore, she started beating him. The Magistrate Court while relying on this testimony convicted the appellant on May 9, 2016 under Section 354 of the IPC. He was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000. The appellant challenged the said judgment before a Sessions Court which on July 10, 2023 dismissed the appeal saying there was no error in the Magistrate's findings. .However, the High Court noted that there was no other evidence on record except the testimony of the victim which the single-judge said was not sufficient to prove the offence. "The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court's below have committed error in not applying the law to the admitted facts and thus rendered incorrect findings," the High Court concluded.With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the judgments of the Magistrate and Sessions Courts..Advocates AR Ingole appeared for the accused. Additional Public Prosecutor AR Chutake represented the State. Advocate PK Sathianathan represented the Victim..[Read Judgment]