whatsapp x

WhatsApp Number

8750970582

Message
phone x
8750970582
email x
info@lawminds.co.in
Lawminds

laws

This is why K Pop Band ‘BTS’ found place in a bail order by Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to a man who is accused of sexually molesting his 14-year-old daughter on several occasions. He was booked for offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. But what was more interesting is the genesis of the case of sexual assault. It was the petitioner’s case that the POCSO case was filed after the victim was stopped from following a Korean pop band known as BTS as it was “un-islamic”.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sexually abused his minor daughter by touching and kissing her on her private parts, both at the residence as also in a hotel at Kochi’s Nedumbassery. This came to be known after the minor revealed these instances to her aunt, Ms. Hiba. The minor victim had started following the said band on the instigation of her aunt. Also, being aggrieved by the fact that the
petitioner had not permitted the victim to go on a school trip to Wayanad, the victim had raised absolutely false allegations, the petitioner argued.

Opposing the grant of bail, the Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He submits that the allegations against the petitioner are extremely serious. Though the investigation had been completed and final report has been filed, the petitioner
cannot be granted bail as the victim is none other than the daughter of the petitioner. Further, absolutely nothing was revealed during investigation which would suggest that this was a false complaint owing to the Aunt’s instigation.


What the Court said?

Justice Gopinath P granted bail after noting that even though the allegations were serious, certain facts put them to doubt.
“It is no doubt true that the allegations are serious. However, certain circumstances mentioned above, leads me to
conclude that there is a possibility that the allegations may be false.”

With this, the Court added that it may not be proper for the Court to make any conclusion regarding the matter. Since investigation has been completed and final report has been filed, continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation, the Court said.

The only apprehension can be that since the victim is none than the daughter of the petitioner, there is every chance of the victim being influenced or intimidated, if the petitioner is granted bail. But the Court noted that the custody of the minor victim is now with her aunt, following orders issued by the Family court. “Therefore, necessary conditions can be imposed to ensure that the petitioner does not come into contact with the victim in any manner and the petitioner can be granted bail subject to conditions”, the Court reasoned while granting bail to the mail.

By Lawminds, ago

Following & abusing woman will not come under outraging modesty of woman: Bombay HC

Bombay: In a rather shocking ruling, the Bombay High Court held that following and abusing a woman will not attract the offence of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty). “As regards following and abusing P.W. 1, the said act cannot be said to be capable to shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman”, Justice Anil L Pansare observed. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/applicant had followed her couple of times and abused her. On the date of incident, while she was going to market, the applicant, who was following her on bicycle, pushed/shoved her. She got annoyed, however, she proceeded further. The applicant followed her and, therefore, she beat him.

After finding sufficient evidence, the courts below convicted the applicant for offense under Section 354. Aggrieved, he moved a revision application before the High Court. Relying on of Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The first is that, the assault must be on a woman. The second is that, the accused must have used criminal force on her and the third is that, criminal force must have been used on the woman intending to outrage her modesty. In the case, the Supreme Court held that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is to find out if the action of the offender could be perceived as capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The High Court noted the ultimate act to be considered is the act of pushing/shoving her while riding bicycle.

 According to the court, this is not an act capable of shocking the decency of a woman.“It is not the case of P.W. 1 that the applicant has touched her inappropriately or has given push at a specific part of her body which made her position embarrassing. The contact with the part of the body of P.W. 1 has been not stated by P.W. 1. In these circumstances, merely because the applicant has on bicycle given a push to P.W. 1, to my mind cannot be said to be an act which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of P.W. 1. The act may be offensive or annoying but cannot be said to be compromising the decency of a woman”.

 The Court also noted that except for the victim’s evidence, there is nothing else bring home the guilt of the applicant. “As stated earlier, her evidence is not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 354 of the IPC. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.” Stating this, the Court reversed the order of the court’s below, stating, “The Courts below have committed error in not applying the law to the admitted facts and thus rendered incorrect findings. The applicant has, therefore, made out a case.

By Lawminds, ago