(Representative image)

MUMBAI: A magistrate court last month acquitted a 55-year-old man accused of molesting a woman while she was playing with her child while observing that she had proceeded to her house “meekly“ without clamouring for help. The court refuted the woman's claim that she was perturbed and shocked by the act that was committed in the presence of her child.

The court clarified that in such instances, reaction is relevant but not always decisive. It reasoned that the incident took place not in an isolated area but one with several homes around and residents she was acquainted with. “In the present case, the accused when with audacity committed the ignoble act by touching her private part then she ought to have thwarted the accused but when (she) has elaborated that she got affright then in view of the discussion here in above coupled with the circumstances ipso facto is explicit of her abnormality ,“ the court said.

The woman had told the court that when the incident took place on December 22, 2014, she was frightened and ran home. She then confided in her mother and two sisters. They lodged a complaint with the Dindoshi police . The woman alleged the accused accosted her when she playing with her son near her house. She said that he put one hand on the child's cheek and groped her with the other. The accused was arrested and a chargesheet was submitted against him.

The court also doubted the woman's testimony made before the court. While referring to the woman's statement before the court in which she said the accused was drunk, the court pointed out that she had not mentioned this to the police.“In the backdrop of such mandate and particularly the report when came to be lodged instantaneously then the alcoholic condition of the accused on the date of the incident ought to have been verbalize but when not then on account of the improved version her testimony becomes doubtful,“ it court said. The court also said that while the woman said she was wearing a salwar kameez, the investigating officer had deposed that she was wearing a night gown. “The omission, infirmities and the attending circumstances if are considered in juxtaposition with each other then it affects the truthfulness of the story propounded by the first informant and hits belt below the case of the prosecution,“ the court said.

