The Court overturned a special court’s decision to convict and sentence a man to two years in jail for publicly hitting his minor girlfriend in an attempt to break up with him.
In Samir Rajesh Sathe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Bombay High Court reversed the conviction of a man accused of sexual harassment and stated that while the dignity of women must always be protected, that does not relieve the prosecution of its obligation to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
A special court’s verdict that condemned a man to two years in prison for hitting his teenage girlfriend in public because she wished to end their relationship was overturned and set aside by Justice Bharati Dangre, a single-judge.
The man had been found guilty by the special court of violating Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 354 (outraging woman’s modesty) and 354-A (sexual harassment).
Justice Dangre set aside the ruling after noting that the prosecution had not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt in order to be cleared.
The Court ruled that although it is true that a woman’s dignity must be upheld at all costs, this does not excuse the prosecution from having to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the prosecution miserably failed to meet the burden placed upon it, the benefit must necessarily go to the accused.
When the alleged incident allegedly occurred, the male was 22 years old and the girl was 17 years old. They were in a relationship and lived in the same area. The girl claimed that after learning that the male had been incarcerated for a year, she began to avoid him and wanted to break up with him. However, the man texted her and contacted her on the phone.
She was later invited to the accused’s final meeting, which took place in February 2022. The male allegedly began looking through the girl’s phone during the meeting and, after becoming suspicious that she might be cheating, began physically attacking her in front of her friends.
After the girl said she didn’t want to be in a relationship with him, the assault took place.
The man was named in the girl’s complaint to the police as a habitual offender with two active rape cases against him.
The defendant was found guilty in a trial that lasted less than six months, according to the special POCSO judge, who believed that the punishment would serve as a deterrence.
Justice Dangre stated that the girl was in a relationship with the accused and that she had known him for more than two years in response to the accused’s appeal.
The judge also pointed out the girl’s depositions’ numerous contradictions and omissions, which diminished the credibility of the evidence.
The court stated, “These omissions are proved by the investigating officer, and on the omissions being proved, the case of the prosecution loses its credibility to a great extent and calls for careful consideration of the girl’s version.”
It also made use of the girl’s friend’s deposition, who claimed to have been there when the incident occurred. The girl’s contradictory account was refuted by the friend, who claimed in her deposition that no such incident occurred in her presence.
“The prosecution case has been severely damaged by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant herself. The Court concluded that the incident’s actual occurrence is questionable and that the special judge made a serious mistake by rejecting the idea that the two were dating.
As a result, the conviction was overturned.
SUBMITTED BY NEHA A. PARDESHI/4TH Year BLS LLB/TRCL
0 Comments