Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Bharathi Dangre has recently quashed and set aside an order of conviction of a man who was sentenced to two years of jail term for assaulting his girlfriend.

The single-judge bench observed that the dignity of women should be protected at any cost but it does not absolve the prosecution to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“True it is that dignity of a woman is to be protected at any cost, but that itself do not absolve the prosecution of establishing it’s case beyond reasonable doubt and, since the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden caste on it, the benefit must necessarily go to the Accused,” the bench noted.

The high court was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the order of conviction and sentence whereby he was sent to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment for outraging the modesty of her girlfriend. The man was booked under Section 354 and Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code. The man was also booked under the POCSO Act since the girl was 17 years old.

It was alleged by the complainant that the man had assaulted, pulled the girl's hair, and slapped her while abusing her and forcing her to keep a love relationship with him.

Further, it was alleged that the man had forcibly held the girl’s hand while demanding a love relationship from her.

The friend of the girl who had accompanied the complainant, who was also a witness, denied the happening of any incident and said that the man was dating the complainant for 2 and a half years.

The lemonade vendor had also stated in his examination-in-chief that the man had slapped the girl. However, in his cross-examination, he said that he did not remember what happened as he was not wearing his spectacles. He could not identify the accused too.

Therefore, while quashing the conviction order the bench noted,

“From the evidence led before the trial Judge, the offense is not at all made out and the learned Judge, in the impugned judgment, has referred to some past criminal antecedents of the Accused and appear to have been carried away by his track record, though it is specifically recorded that he is not found to be guilty for the said offences.”

The bench while acquitting the accused for the alleged offence said that the occurrence of the incident itself was doubtful.

“The observations of the learned Judge in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the impugned judgment do not deserve confrmation, since the narration of PW 1 itself do not prove the prosecution case, and her version is not corroborated by her friend (PW 2), who shared friendship with her from frst standard to tenth standard. The occurrence of the incident itself is doubtful and the learned Judge has fallen in grave error in not accepting the fact that the two were in a relationship, which can be seen through the photograph (Article A) and the chat messages brought on record,” the order stated.

Case Title: Samir Rajesh Sathe @ Samir Hussain Shaikh vs State of Maharastra & Anr.