Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently observed that following a woman a couple of times may be annoying but does not amount to outraging the modesty of a woman.

“As regards following and abusing P.W. 1, the said act cannot be said to be capable to shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman. Nonetheless keeping in mind this conduct of the applicant, the ultimate act which he has done will have to be considered, which act is pushing/shoving her while riding bicycle. It is not the case of P.W. 1 that the applicant has touched her inappropriately or has given push at a specific part of her body which made her position embarrassing,” the court said.

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Anil Pansare, was hearing an appeal filed by a man who was convicted for outraging the modesty of a woman and was sentenced to two years in rigorous imprisonment.

The victim alleged that the man had followed her a couple of times and abused her. On the date of the incident, while she was going to the market, the applicant, who was following her on a bicycle, pushed/shoved her.

Although she was annoyed, she proceeded further. The applicant continued to follow her, and as a result, she beat him.

Advocate AR Ingole, appearing for the accused, while referring to a Supreme Court judgment, contended that the accused must have used criminal force on her and that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.

The high court, in its order, observed that the act of pushing the victim with a cycle may be offensive or annoying, but cannot be said to compromise the decency of a woman.

“In these circumstances, merely because the applicant has on bicycle given a push to P.W. 1, to my mind cannot be said to be an act which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of P.W. 1. The act may be offensive or annoying but cannot be said to be compromising the decency of a woman. That being so, in my considered view, the Courts below have committed an error in holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC,” the court said.

The bench noted that the victim was the only star witness in the case, and the shopkeeper, who was another witness, did not support the prosecution’s case.

Consequently, the court proceeded to acquit the accused.

Case title: Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail vs State of Maharashtra