SC: Outraging woman’s modesty a heinous crime

It’s a “heinous crime” to outrage a woman’s modesty which needs to be “strongly guarded”, the Supreme Court has said while upholding the six months imprisonment awarded to a man for “behaving like a roadside Romeo” and molesting a woman 18 years ago. A bench headed by Justice B.S. Chauhan, in its judgement dated October 4, rejected the plea of the convict, Ajahar Ali, seeking that he be pardoned as the incident took place in 1995 and he was a juvenile at that time. Ali, now in his thirties, was 16 when he forcibly grabbed, manhandled and kissed a 16-year-old girl in public which had resulted in injuries on her face. “...The appellant has committed a heinous crime and with the social condition prevailing in the society, the modesty of a woman has to be strongly guarded,” the bench said while upholding the six months imprisonment and `1,000 fine imposed on Ali by the trial court in May 2012. “as the appellant (Ali) behaved like a road side Romeo, we do not think it is a fit case where benefit...should be given to the appellant,” the bench further said. The conviction and sentence was also upheld in September in 2012 by the Calcutta high court, whose order was challenged by Ali in the apex court. While upholding the Calcutta HC order, the apex court said: “The High Court had been of the opinion that appellant had been dealt with very leniently and it was a fit case where the high court wanted to enhance the sentence but considering the fact that the incident occurred long back, the high court refrained to do so”. The apex court said it agreed with Ali’s contention that the punishment should not be enhanced as he as well as the complainant have settled in life and both of them are married and have children, and that their lives should not be disturbed. The counsel for the man had argued that since he was juvenile when he committed the crime, in view of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, he ought to have been tried before the Juvenile Justice Board and not by the criminal court, as was done. The bench, however, agreed with the prosecution’s counter-argument that even if the convict’s plea is considered under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the maximum punishment that can be awarded is of three years, while in the present case, he had been sentenced only for a period of six months. Therefore, it will be a futile exercise to consider the case of the appellant on that anvil, the counsel for the prosecution said.