Read Time: 06 minutes

A single bench of Justice Mukund Sewlikar noted that touching of any part of the body of a woman by a stranger, would amount to outraging her modesty - while deciding on the question in a factual set up of a man sitting on the cot of a woman and trying to touch her feet in the dead of the night.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court observed the same, while stating,

"Moreover, touching any part of the body of a woman without her consent that too in the dead hour of the night by a stranger amounts to violation of modesty of a woman. He did not enter the house of the victim with any sublime motive."

The Bench further noted that,

"He was sitting at the feet of the victim and had touched her feet and was sitting on her cot. This behaviour smacks of sexual intent. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to be in the house of the victim at such an odd hour of the night."

The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by one Parmeshwar Dhage, 36, a resident of Jalna district, who had challenged the decision of a lower court there, convicting him for outraging the modesty of his neighbour. The lower court had sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment.

As per the present prosecution case, in July 2014, Dhage went to the victim's house at evening time and asked her by when her husband would return. She told him that her husband has been to another village and won't return that night.

Subsequently, Dhage again went to the victim's house by 11 pm in the night, when she was sleeping. He opened her door, which was not bolted from inside, sat on her cot and touched her feet.

In his defence, the counsel contended that the appellant had no intention to outrage the woman’s modesty.

Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case and noting the essential ingredients of Section 354- A (i) of Indian Penal Code, the Bench observed that,

"From the material on record, it is clear that Dhage's act was capable of shocking the sense of decency of any woman."

The Bench further noted that Dhage could not give any answer, much less any satisfactory answer, as to what he was doing at the victim's house in the dead of the night.

Lastly, the Bench observed,

"This clearly indicates that he had gone there with a sexual intent and violated the modesty of the informant. Therefore, the lower court did not commit any error in holding that Dhage had molested the victim."

Cause Title: Parmeshwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2021