A Mumbai court last week condemned a 25- time-old businessman for sexually draining a minor girl by calling her an" item".( State v. Abrar Noor Mohd Khan).
Special judge SJ Ansari said that the term bodied women in a sexual manner and would attract the offence of outraging modesty of woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code( IPC). The judge sitting at Sessions Court in Dindoshi, Mumbai, condemned the businessman under Sections 354 IPC and vittles under the Protection of Children under Sexual Offences( POCSO) Act and doomed him to1.5 times in jail.
The judge emphasized that similar offences and uncalled geste need to be dealt with a heavy hand to cover women. " The indicted having addressed her by using the term “ item ” which is a term used generally by boys to address girls in a depreciatory fashion as it objectifies them in a sexual manner. The same will easily indicate his intention of outraging her modesty.. similar offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand as a assignment needs to be allocate out to similar road side romeos, in order to cover the women from their uncalled for geste" the judge observed in his 28 runner conviction orde
The indicted lived in the same neighbourhood as the minor and had been reserved in 2015 for teasing the minor while she'd return from academy. The incident leading to the FIR was of 2015 where the indicted accosted the girl, pulled her hair and said" kya item kidhar ja rahi ho?"( Where are you off to?).
When the girl expressly asked him to not do so, he started abusing her and indeed said that she couldn't harm him in any way. The victim called 100 from her mobile, and while the police did rush on the spot, the indicted had ran down from the spot.
So, the girl, with her father, went to the original police station, and lodged a complaint, grounded on which an FIR was registered. The statement of the girl and her father was also recorded. The indicted's defended himself stating that the girl and him had been musketeers before the incident in question and that the complaint was because her parents didn't like their fellowship.
The Court editorialized that the substantiation is dependable and secure, and has a ring of verity to it.
Further, there's no material brought on record by the indicted to show that there was any reason for the girl to depose falsely against him.
The execution therefore, can be said to have proved the fact that the indicted was constantly following the girl child, with a sexual intent of draining her, the Court editorialized.
" It's true that there's nothing to show the fact of any other crime having been registered against the indicted. The fact, still, remains that the execution has proved the fact of he having outraged the modesty of a minor girl while she was walking in a lane and of having sexually wearied the said child.. Accordingly, there doesn't arise any question of granting the benefit of exploration to the indicted or showing unwarranted charity to him", the Court concluded.
Tags:
Judgment