Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Entered Before Attachment Cannot Defeat Decree-Holder’s Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Presumption That Joint Family Possesses Joint Property; Female Hindu Absolute Owner Of Property Purchased In Her Name: Allahabad High Court Age Determination Must Strictly Follow Hierarchy Of Documents Under JJ Act: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Of POCSO Charges Once 'C' Form Declarations Are Signed, Burden Shifts To Buyer To Prove Payment Of Outstanding Dues: Madras High Court Section 213 Succession Act No Bar To Eviction Suit If Claim Is Based On Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Not Title Under Will: Bombay High Court Meritorious Candidate Wrongfully Denied Appointment Entitled To Notional Seniority & Old Pension Scheme: J&K & Ladakh High Court 6-Year Delay In Propounding Will & Hostile Attesting Witness Constitute 'Grave Suspicious Circumstances': Delhi High Court Refuses Probate Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court Recording Section 313 CrPC Statement Before Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witness Does Not Vitiate Trial: Karnataka High Court Murder By Unknown Assailants Is Not 'Accidental Death' Under Mukhymantri Kisan Bima Yojna: Allahabad High Court Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High Court

Even Relative have No Right To Touch Body of Girl's consent: Mumbai court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


A court in Mulund, Mumbai, recently sentenced a 43-year-old man to one month in jail and a 1,000 fine for holding his minor cousin's hand without her consent and proposing marriage [The State of Maharashtra vs Manikumar Wilson Nadar].

Metropolitan Magistrate RD Dange stated that the accused's relationship to the victim did not give him permission to touch her without her consent.

"In the present case, PW1 testified that the defendant's actions made her feel insulted and ashamed. Even though the accused is PW1's relative, he had no right to touch her without her consent "the Judge ruled.

In February 2009, when she was in ninth grade, the minor filed a complaint at the Bhandup police station under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing harm) and 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She claimed that while she was walking home from school, her cousin grabbed her hand, proposed marriage, and invited her to his home.

Regarding the violation of Section 354, the court found the prosecution witnesses' testimony credible and convicted the defendant.

However, the defendant was acquitted of the Section 323 offence because the court did not believe the complainant and her sister's testimony that the defendant had struck the victim.

The defendant pleaded for clemency and asked to be released on a bond of good behaviour under the Probation of Offenders Act.

The court determined that the case did not qualify for the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act due to the nature of the offence, the victim's age, and the ongoing nature of the other complaints.

The State of Maharashtra

versus

Manikumar Wilson Nadar

 

 

 

Latest Legal News