Mumbai Court Sentences 32-Year-Old Man to 1 Year Jail Term For Rubbing 100 Rupee Note On Minor Girl’s Lips

A Special Court in Mumbai has convicted a 32-year-old man under Section 354 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act for rubbing an Rs. 100 note on the lips of a minor child. Court awarded the convict rigorous imprisonment of 1 year while imposing a fine of Rs. 3000.

A case was registered against the man on a complaint by the mother of the victim. She stated that after the victim came back home from a market with her neighbor and informed her that the convict was stalking her. The victim also told her mother that the convict then took out a 100 rupees note and moved it on her lips and said “Tu aise kya bol rahi hai. Mein Tuje Like karta hu aur tu itna bhav kyu kha rahi hai”.

After people gathered there, the victim ran away to her house. The mother and her daughter visited the house of the convict. However, after the convict abused them, the mother approached the police to file a complaint.

Special Public Prosecutor Veena Shelar argued that the testimony of the victim was consistent and that the victim had deposed that the convict had committed sexual harassment against her in a public place.

Further, it was submitted that the victim’s testimony was corroborated by her neighbor who was with the victim at the time of the said incident.

Advocate DG Gijral for the convict argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the convict and that the evidence recorded was hearsay. He further submitted that the happening of such an event at a public place was highly impossible and that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

The victim had deposed before the court that the convict used to stalk her when she used to go to college and used to whistle at her while passing comments. The convict had also threatened the father of the victim and had told the victim that he will stab her and her mother.

The court in its order noted that the sole testimony of the victim was enough to prove the guilt of the convict. The order read,

“The sole testimony of victim is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Though, prosecution did not examine independent witness, it will not prove fatal to the prosecution case. The victim is also a competent witness. From her cross-examination, no material contradiction or omission are brought on record and nothing is suggested in respect of inimical terms between both families.”

The court also recorded that no mother would put her daughter’s integrity at stake to make a false allegation. It stated,

“Moreover, the recitals of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are corroborative in nature and consistent with her oral testimony. Moreover, no mother would use her child that too female and put her integrity, character and future at stake by making such false allegations. Therefore, her testimony is reliable and acceptable.”

The court then sentenced the 32-year-old convict to rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and imposed a fine of Rs. 3000.

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Santosh Jotiram Talekar

Statue: POCSO Act 2013, IPC 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973