A Mumbai court last week convicted a 25-year-old businessman for sexually harassing a minor girl by calling her an "item". [State v. Abrar Noor Mohd Khan]..Special judge SJ Ansari said that the term objectified women in a sexual manner and would attract the offence of outraging modesty of woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judge sitting at Sessions Court in Dindoshi, Mumbai, convicted the businessman under Sections 354 IPC and provisions under the Protection of Children under Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced him to 1.5 years in jail. The judge emphasized that such offences and uncalled behaviour need to be dealt with a heavy hand to protect women. "The accused having addressed her by using the term “item” which is a term used generally by boys to address girls in a derogatory fashion as it objectifies them in a sexual manner. The same will clearly indicate his intention of outraging her modesty. ...Such offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand as a lesson needs to be meted out to such road side romeos, in order to protect the women from their uncalled for behaviour," the judge observed in his 28 page conviction orde.The accused lived in the same neighbourhood as the minor and had been booked in 2015 for teasing the minor while she would return from school. The incident leading to the FIR was of 2015 where the accused accosted the girl, pulled her hair and said "kya item kidhar ja rahi ho?" (Where are you off to?). When the girl expressly asked him to not do so, he started abusing her and even said that she could not harm him in any way. The victim called 100 from her mobile, and while the police did rush on the spot, the accused had ran away from the spot.So, the girl, with her father, went to the local police station, and lodged a complaint, based on which an FIR was registered. The statement of the girl and her father was also recorded. The accused's defended himself stating that the girl and him had been friends before the incident in question and that the complaint was because her parents did not like their friendship. .The Court opined that the evidence is reliable and trustworthy, and has a ring of truth to it.Further, there is no material brought on record by the accused to show that there was any reason for the girl to depose falsely against him.The prosecution thus, can be said to have proved the fact that the accused was repeatedly following the girl child, with a sexual intent of harassing her, the Court opined. "It is true that there is nothing to show the fact of any other crime having been registered against the accused. The fact, however, remains that the prosecution has proved the fact of he having outraged the modesty of a minor girl while she was walking in a lane and of having sexually harassed the said child. ...Consequently, there does not arise any question of granting the benefit of probation to the accused or showing unwarranted leniency to him", the Court concluded. .[Read order]
A Mumbai court last week convicted a 25-year-old businessman for sexually harassing a minor girl by calling her an "item". [State v. Abrar Noor Mohd Khan]..Special judge SJ Ansari said that the term objectified women in a sexual manner and would attract the offence of outraging modesty of woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judge sitting at Sessions Court in Dindoshi, Mumbai, convicted the businessman under Sections 354 IPC and provisions under the Protection of Children under Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced him to 1.5 years in jail. The judge emphasized that such offences and uncalled behaviour need to be dealt with a heavy hand to protect women. "The accused having addressed her by using the term “item” which is a term used generally by boys to address girls in a derogatory fashion as it objectifies them in a sexual manner. The same will clearly indicate his intention of outraging her modesty. ...Such offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand as a lesson needs to be meted out to such road side romeos, in order to protect the women from their uncalled for behaviour," the judge observed in his 28 page conviction orde.The accused lived in the same neighbourhood as the minor and had been booked in 2015 for teasing the minor while she would return from school. The incident leading to the FIR was of 2015 where the accused accosted the girl, pulled her hair and said "kya item kidhar ja rahi ho?" (Where are you off to?). When the girl expressly asked him to not do so, he started abusing her and even said that she could not harm him in any way. The victim called 100 from her mobile, and while the police did rush on the spot, the accused had ran away from the spot.So, the girl, with her father, went to the local police station, and lodged a complaint, based on which an FIR was registered. The statement of the girl and her father was also recorded. The accused's defended himself stating that the girl and him had been friends before the incident in question and that the complaint was because her parents did not like their friendship. .The Court opined that the evidence is reliable and trustworthy, and has a ring of truth to it.Further, there is no material brought on record by the accused to show that there was any reason for the girl to depose falsely against him.The prosecution thus, can be said to have proved the fact that the accused was repeatedly following the girl child, with a sexual intent of harassing her, the Court opined. "It is true that there is nothing to show the fact of any other crime having been registered against the accused. The fact, however, remains that the prosecution has proved the fact of he having outraged the modesty of a minor girl while she was walking in a lane and of having sexually harassed the said child. ...Consequently, there does not arise any question of granting the benefit of probation to the accused or showing unwarranted leniency to him", the Court concluded. .[Read order]
