Aurangabad: The Bombi Bombay High Court in Aurangabad has stated that it touches the part of a woman without his consent, it is also in the death of the night by a stranger, the number of violating the politeness of a woman.
A rights rights of Heart Rights 25, 2015, sentenced the man to a tight prison sentence for the simplicity of the woman.
HC has completed the hearing of October 29 defense and has ordered a verdict, which was spoken on December 21.
The man, who lived in a neighbor’s house, had entered a woman’s house around 11pm on July 4, 2014 – after learning from him before on her day her husband was late than outside the station – and touched her feet when she was sleeping.
The woman felt her intention and lifted an alarm, pushed the man to escape but not before him and his grandmother had seen it.
The bench holds the Petitioner’s advisor “can’t give any answers, let alone a satisfactory answer”, with the request why the applicant was present at the victim’s house at night.
“The applicant did not enter the victim’s house with any noble motif.
He has confirmed at night from the victim that her husband will not attend the house at night.
Therefore, the applicant ventured to enter the house.
This clearly shows that the applicant has gone there With sexual intentions and breaking the simplicity of the informant, “Bench said.
Referring to SC assessment of courtesy, including the verdict of 1996 which was well-known in the case of Deol Bajaj vs KPS Gill, the bench was observed, “when this test was applied to the facts of the instant case, it was clear that the Applicant’s actions were able to surprise the courtesy of any woman.
“” In that case, the applicant was sitting at the foot of the victim and touched his feet and sat in his bed.
This behavior slaps sexual intentions.
Otherwise there is no reason for the applicant to be at the victim’s house at the strange time that night, “said Bench.
The applicant had taken the alibi that he was in Jalna City and was not present at the time of the alleged incident, besides that the woman did not dart the house from inside and that there was a delay on registration of FIR.
The bench, however, observed that the applicant did not establish Alibi also did not produce evidence to show that he was hired at Jalna.
In addition, the victim and his father-in-law had seen him.
Thus, the trial and court appeal is right in throwing away the alibilities.
The bench further observed that the victim had explained the delay properly in the Cemara Inn because he and his grandmother in-law alone when the incident occurred, and they were waiting for her husband back.
Touching a woman without approval is a violation of simplicity: HC
