Woman Knows Man’s Intention | Mumbai Court Sentences Accused To Imprisonment Whose Lips ‘Accidentally’ Touched Complainant’s Cheek

During the trial in August 2015, the victim had testified in court that she had gone to Govandi to meet a friend. Around 1.20 pm, the two boarded a a local train from Govandi to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT). At Masjid station, a man boarded the train and sat across them. She was aware that he was gazing at her, but she chose to ignore him, reported Bar and Bench.

Later the woman said that she stood up to alight when the train approached CSMT, and the man too followed them. She then accused him of kissing her on her right cheek unexpectedly.

Immediately, she raised an alarm, and the man was beaten up by several commuters before being transported to the CSMT railway police station.

Two additional witnesses testified that they saw the accused getting beaten up by fellow riders on the train after the lady raised an alert.

Accused Man’s Version

According to the accused Kiran Subraya Honavar, the act was not deliberate, instead a commuter behind had pushed him and consequently, he fell on the woman resulting in his lips touching her cheek.

Mumbai Metropolitan Court

Metropolitan Magistrate VP Kedar rejected the man’s plea that the kiss was accidental and said that a woman has the ability to gauge a man’s intention from his look and touch. The court remarked,

It is said that the women are far more perceptive than men, and this has given rise to what is commonly referred to as women’s intuition.

Women have innate ability to pick up and decipher non verbal signals as well as having an accurate eye for small details. Woman knows a man’s intention when he touches her or looks her.

The court further added that there was no reason to doubt the version of the victim and prosecution witness – both of whom have deposed in one voice. The court thus held,

Their testimonies had gone unchallenged and remained unshaken. Mere suggestion that the incident occurred inadvertently does not come rescue of the accused in absence of any further explanation or some material which could be acceptable.

The Court was convinced that the prosecution had made a strong case and it further went on to say,

The prosecution by direct, cogent and positive evidence established that accused had kissed the informant on her right side cheek. Thus, the circumstances coupled with clearly established the fact that the accused had intentionally and with knowledge kissed the right cheek of the informant thereby outraging her modesty.

The Court added that a woman is capable of understanding the intention of a man’s touch or look. Before adding that only the survivor can discern the real intention of the perpetrator, the court said,

Her perception revealed from her testimony clearly point out that the accused had committed alleged act intentionally. Woman knows a man’s intention when he touches her or looks her.

A woman may know less but she understands more. It is a natural gift. A touch or a look, a man will not understand but a woman knows the intention behind these.

The court also noted that the man possessed a distorted mentality. It observed,

The provisions of section 354 of IPC meant for public morality and to safeguard the decency of the women. His act created fear, annoyance in the mind of the informant. The act of accused caused impact on her mind breaking her confidence. The act of accused is nothing but an attack on her personal right, individual liberty and dignity of her person.

Man Convicted

The Court, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused man, observing that his act amounted to an attack on the victim’s dignity and deserved conviction under Section 354 (outraging modesty of woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

While the maximum sentence of offence under Section 354 is five years, the Court sentenced the man to a year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 10,000 after taking into account the fact that there were no previous criminal cases against him and he was an earning member of his family.

Half of the fine amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant.