Case BriefsDistrict Court

Court of Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Fort Greater Mumbai: Expressing that essence of a woman’s modesty is her womanhood, H.H. The Special Judge A.D.DEO, remarked that incidents of unwelcome, inappropriate touch by the male accused in the journey are very common sexual assault experience by every common woman travelling in public transport, but ignored by each one of them, thinking that there is no likelihood of coming across, the same assailant after the journey.

Accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 91 of the Rights of Person with Disability Act, 2016 for making unwelcome and explicit touch to two female co-passengers while travelling in handicap compartment of local train thereby committing sexual assault upon them.

 Details of incident


Informant was a minor victim 1 who was travelling as escort to her blind aunt i.e., victim 2 in handicap compartment of local train and they were going to attend a programme arranged by National Association for Blind.

Victim was the escort of PW-2, and they were travelling by local train from Badlapur to CSTM. As they wanted to go to Reay Road, they intended to change train at Kurla. When the Ghatkopar Station passed the informant, and her aunty went towards the right-side door.

It was stated that the informant was standing near the door, at that time she heard the voice of her aunt and saw that she was slapping a person. On asking what happened, her aunt said that the person had made inappropriate touch to her breast.

Upon that the informant said that the assailant of her aunt, while passing beside her (i.e. informant), had touched her breast and pressed it.

In view of the above, FIR was filed.

Analysis and Discussion


The Court noted that both PW-1 and PW-2 gave vivid details about the incident.

The Bench found the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 to be creditworthy, cogent, consistent and reliable.

Further, it was stated that the innocence of PW-1 was reflected from her version that when the accused made unwelcome explicit touch to her breast, she ignored it, thinking that there was rush.

Court expressed that,

“What constitutes, an outrage to female modesty, is nowhere denied. The essence of woman’s modesty is her sex. It is the virtue, which is attached to a female, owning to her, sex.”

In the present matter, the culpable intention of the accused was the crux of the matter and the reaction of the woman was very relevant.

Additionally, the Court said that with regard to the nature of the allegation and the manner in which sexual offences are committed i.e. those are mostly committed secretly, it is also required to be pondered whether sole testimony of victim in such, nature of the allegation,

Decision


Upon evaluating and appraising the testimony of the prime witnesses PW­1 and PW­2 and the attendant factors and circumstances of the case, clinchingly, unequivocally it is elicited that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused with sexual intent, made unwelcome touch to the victim girl aged 17 years, which was explicit sexual overtures.

“…incident as deposed by the two female victim PW­1 and PW­2 i.e. of unwelcome, inappropriate touch by the male accused, in journey, is a very common sexual assault experienced by every common woman traveling in public transport, but ignored by each one of them, thinking that there is no likelihood of coming across, the same assailant after the journey. Hence, almost all such assaults go unreported.”

As per Section 7 of the POCSO Act, whoever with sexual intent inter alia does any other act, which involves physical contact without penetration, is said to commit sexual assault.

Hence, the accused was guilty of committing an offence under Section 7 POCSO Act punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, Section 354 IPC and Section 91 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016.

In view of the impact of child sexual abuse and on balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, Court passed the following order:

  • Accused stands convicted as per Section 235(2) of CrPC for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and a fine of Rs 25,000 and in default to undergo a term of 6 months.
  • Accused stands convicted for offence under Section 354 and imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs 5,000.
  • Accused stands convicted for the offence under Section 91 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act and to undergo imprisonment for a term of 1 year and fine of Rs 5,000 and in default to undergo a term of 15 days.
  • Accused to surrender his bail bonds and to be taken into custody.

[State of Maharashtra v. Mohsin Allauddin Chougule, Special Case No. 468 of 2017, decided on 22-2-2022]


Advocates before the Court

Ms. Jyoti Sawant, Spl PP for the State.

Mr. Pujari, Advocate for the Accused.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner sought for a direction upon the respondents to allot a shop situated at the Municipal Library in the name of the petitioner on the ground that he has been running the aforesaid shop since long. 

The petitioner was not the allottee of the shop, rather, the shop was sublet in his favour by the original allottee. As the period of lease of the original allottee had expired, the petitioner handed over the keys of the shop with an application for consideration for allotment of the shop in his favour, but the shop was allotted to someone else. The petitioner argued that he was not allotted the shop as he was not deemed fit or proper since he was a handicapped person. The petitioner further submitted that he has been running the shop for long, and therefore priority ought to have been given by the respondents in allotment of the said shop. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner had no right to claim the allotment of the said shop since the said shop was never allotted in his favour, rather, he was tenant of the original allottee and after expiry of the lease in favour of the original allottee, the petitioner had no right to remain in the said premises. Furthermore, the order of allotment made in favour of the other person was never assailed.

The Court heard both the parties and decided that the shop in question was never allotted in the favour of the petitioner, rather, he was claiming allotment of the said shop by virtue of the fact that he was in occupation by way of the tenant by the original allottee. The allotment of the shop by virtue of the expiry of the lease expired and therefore, the petitioner had no right to remain in possession of the said shop.  The petitioner had simply prayed in this writ petition for allotment of the said shop on the ground that he was handicapped and was running a shop in the said premises since long, but merely because the petitioner is handicapped, no sympathy could be shown by the Court ignoring the process of allotment of the shop. Also, the order of allotment was also never under challenge. The writ petition was dismissed. [Amarendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1451, decided on 18-10-2019]