Bhuvana Marni
Published on: October 26, 2022 at 22:02 IST
The Special Court held that calling an unknown girl “item” and pulling her hair would amount to offending her modesty, punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, where the court held that while sentencing a 25-year-old businessman from Mumbai to a year and a half in prison in a sexual harassment case.
Special Judge Justice S J Ansari noticed that “Item is a term used generally by boys to address girls in a derogatory fashion as it sexually objectifies them, the same will clearly indicate his intention of outraging her modesty.”
The court refused to release him on the execution of a bond of good behaviour under the Protection of Offenders Act, the judge observed.
“Such offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand as a lesson needs to be meted out to such road side Romeos, in order to protect the women from their uncalled for behaviour. Consequently, there does not arise any question of granting the benefit of probation to the accused or showing unwanted leniency to him”.
According to the prosecution’s evidence, the victim had moved to Sakinaka in Mumbai just one month before the crime. She constantly complained about being harassed by the accused and his friends. He used to follow her around and refer to her as an “item.”
However, on July 14, 2015, the accused yanked the 16-year-old’s hair as she was walking home from school and questioned, “Kya item kidhar ja rahi ho?” while adding, “Ae item sun na.”
As soon as she told him to stop, he started abusing her, which prompted her to dial the police helpline, “100.”
The accused, Abrar Khan, left as soon as the victim dialled 100.
Subsequently, an FIR was registered, and the accused was granted anticipatory bail. Four witnesses were questioned by the defence.
According to Khan’s defence attorney, the man was falsely accused. According to him, the victim’s parents were dissatisfied with their connection, and a false case was brought against him since the accused and the victim were friends.
The court disagreed with the victim’s cogent testimony, which was based on the accused.
The court added that since the victim and charged didn’t even know each other, “it was wholly inappropriate of the accused to act in the way in which he did, which qualifies as using criminal force to her.”
Moreover, “the fact of the accused having intentionally caught hold of the victim ‘X’s hair and having pulled it, as also of he calling her an “item”, in my opinion, will certainly go to prove the fact of he having outraged her modesty,” the judge observed.
But the judge said the charge of stalking hasn’t been proven.
The judge held him guilty under Sections 354 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.