Calling an unknown girl “item” and pulling her hair would amount to outraging her modesty punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, a special court held while sentencing a 25-year-old businessman from Mumbai to a year and a half in prison in a sexual harassment case Livelaw reports.
Special judge S J Ansari observed that “Item is a term used generally by boys to address girls in a derogatory fashion as it objectifies them in a sexual manner, the same will clearly indicate his intention of outraging her modesty.” Declining to release him on execution of a bond of good behaviour under the Probation of Offenders Act, the judge observed. “Such offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand as a lesson needs to be meted out to such road side romeos, in order to protect the women from their uncalled for behaviour. Consequently, there does not arise any question of granting the benefit of probation to the accused or showing unwarranted leniency to him.”
The prosecution case stated that the victim had shifted to Sakinaka, in Mumbai, just a month prior to the incident. She had been complaining about the accused and his friends harassing her. He would continuously follow her and used to address her “item” However, on July 14, 2015, the 16-yr-old was returning from school when the the accused pulled her hair and asked her “kya item kidhar ja rahi ho ?” and commented “”ae item sun na””. On being told to stop, the man began hurling abuses at her forcing her to call the police helpline ‘100.’ The accused Abrar Khan fled by the time the police reached,and hence an FIR was registered subsequently and the accused secured anticipatory bail. The prosecution examined four witnesses.
Khan’s defence counsel said the man was falsely implicated. He submitted that the accused and victim were friends and the false case was foisted on him because the victim’s parents were unhappy with their relationship. The court however disagreed with the accused based on the victim’s cogent testimony. The court added since the victim and accused didn’t even know each other, “it was wholly inappropriate of the accused to act in the way in which he did, which act qualifies as using criminal force to her.”
Moreover, “”The fact of the accused having intentionally caught hold of the victim ‘X’s hair and having pulled it, as also of he calling her an “item”, in my opinion, will certainly go to prove the fact of he having outraged her modesty,” the judge observed. But the judge said charge of stalking hasn’t been proved.
The judge held him guilty under sections 354 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act.