MUMBAI: A Bandra-based yoga teacher’s quick thinking of clicking pictures of a man who inappropriately touched her bottom last year has ensured that he was arrested and subsequently convicted and sentenced to a one year rigorous imprisonment.
Finding Dhanbhai Muzumdar (21), guilty, magistrate Komalsing Rajput said, “..the defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. However, except bare denials and certain suggestions, there is nothing in the cross examination (of victim) from which it can be inferred that accused has been falsely implicated by the informant. Admittedly, informant and accused were unknown to each other before the incident. There is no reason to drag the accused in the false case. The evidence is cogent and trustworthy. Merely because no other witness or evidence is collected, informant cannot be disbelieved.”
The victim, among the two witnesses to depose in court, said that on May 23, 2023, at about 7.25am was going to her studio from her place of residence. At that time a man unknown to her came from behind, touched her on her bottom and crossed her, she screamed. Listening to her screaming, he turned around. At that time, she took his photograph on her mobile phone. She was frightened and ran to her studio. Then she called her parents and narrated the incident to them. They went to police station and lodged a report. While lodging the report, she showed the photograph taken on her phone to police. The victim identified the accused present in the court as the same person who touched her and outraged her modesty.
A police officer who deposed said that on the basis of photograph taken by informant in her mobile phone, the present accused was traced and arrested the same day.
Relying on the evidence, the magistrate said that it is proved that accused touched the victim with the intention to outrage her modesty.
The prosecution prayed for severe punishment. “The offence is serious and against woman,” the prosecution said. However, seeking leniency, the accused said that he has been in jail since his arrest. He also submitted that despite granting bail, nobody turned up to comply with bail order. He also submitted that he is a resident of West Bengal and from poor financial background.
While sentencing him, the magistrate said, “As submitted, there is a sister and mother dependent on him. He is the only earning member of his family. Considering the period of custody undergone and these aspects, leniency needs to be shown to accused while granting punishment.”
Finding Dhanbhai Muzumdar (21), guilty, magistrate Komalsing Rajput said, “..the defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. However, except bare denials and certain suggestions, there is nothing in the cross examination (of victim) from which it can be inferred that accused has been falsely implicated by the informant. Admittedly, informant and accused were unknown to each other before the incident. There is no reason to drag the accused in the false case. The evidence is cogent and trustworthy. Merely because no other witness or evidence is collected, informant cannot be disbelieved.”
The victim, among the two witnesses to depose in court, said that on May 23, 2023, at about 7.25am was going to her studio from her place of residence. At that time a man unknown to her came from behind, touched her on her bottom and crossed her, she screamed. Listening to her screaming, he turned around. At that time, she took his photograph on her mobile phone. She was frightened and ran to her studio. Then she called her parents and narrated the incident to them. They went to police station and lodged a report. While lodging the report, she showed the photograph taken on her phone to police. The victim identified the accused present in the court as the same person who touched her and outraged her modesty.
A police officer who deposed said that on the basis of photograph taken by informant in her mobile phone, the present accused was traced and arrested the same day.
Relying on the evidence, the magistrate said that it is proved that accused touched the victim with the intention to outrage her modesty.
The prosecution prayed for severe punishment. “The offence is serious and against woman,” the prosecution said. However, seeking leniency, the accused said that he has been in jail since his arrest. He also submitted that despite granting bail, nobody turned up to comply with bail order. He also submitted that he is a resident of West Bengal and from poor financial background.
While sentencing him, the magistrate said, “As submitted, there is a sister and mother dependent on him. He is the only earning member of his family. Considering the period of custody undergone and these aspects, leniency needs to be shown to accused while granting punishment.”
