Proof of Molestation is a Must

 The term of imprisonment can be extended to seven years. If she is touched in any of her private parts without her consent then it affects her modesty. Modesty of a woman is outraged when the act of the offender is such that it is shocking and can be perceived as an affront to feminine decency and dignity.

Molestation is an assault to a woman without her consent. If the modesty of a woman is outraged then it is said to be molestation. If it is proved legally that a woman is molested then the criminal would be jailed for a period of five years and can also be fined. The term of imprisonment can be extended to seven years. If she is touched in any of her private parts without her consent then it affects her modesty. Modesty of a woman is outraged when the act of the offender is such that it is shocking and can be perceived as an affront to feminine decency and dignity. The physical touch on any private part of a woman should make her cringe.

Molestation leaves scars not only on body but on the mind of the victim.

Prosecution must prove the following:

• The assault is on a woman
• Criminal force was used on the accused
• Intention was to harm modesty of the woman
• There must be some contact be it physical or in the form of an assault
• The accused must have the knowledge that the act was likely to outrage the modesty of a women
• There are certain proofs that need to be provided in order to prove the fact that a woman is molested. It is quite possible that an eye witness may not be present and the woman is molested in private. In such a case, evidences besides eye witness must be presented in front of the court.
• The oral evidence of the victim should be reliable, believable and should corroborate with the FIR filed at the police station
• Sometimes, FIR is not lodged immediately after the incident which further leads to the acquittal of the case.

It is also seen that sometimes a man is framedand in such a case there are no proper evidence to prove that a woman is molested. For example, a mere hitting on buttocks with an object is not a case of molestation. There are times when a woman frames a case to meet certain demands from a man and so on. There are alot of unscrupulous women who cry out that they are molested in order to extract revenge or extract money from a man. .

Now let us look at some of the sections of IPC and what they suggest:

As per Section 350 of IPC, criminal force is defined as “Whoever, intentionally uses force on any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”

As per Section 351 of IPC, assault is defined as “Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture, or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who males that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person is said to commit an assault.

It is seen that the modesty of woman is not mentioned in any of these sections of IPC. But there must an offence against a woman. And there must be some sort of physical contact so that it can be said to be a case of molestation.

There are many instances of false molestation cases in India and these cases are becoming common in India.

Proof of false molestation can be had when there are inconsistencies in the FIR and the woman’s narration during the trial in court.

Many times acquittals take plavce when the narration is weak, vague or bizarre , that is the court does not believe wthat molestation actually has taken place.

In some cases woman take advantage of this law to cry molestation when an accident takes place and there is a scuffle or a man catches apickpocket or woman thief.

To put such cases at rest the Bombay High Court has ruled:

“The test will be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the accused was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. If a quarrel takes place suddenly for which both parties are more or less to be blamed, then by no stretch of imagination can it be held that in the resultant scuffle between the quarreling parties, the accused persons either intended or knew it to be likely that they will thereby outrage the modesty of the woman.”

It can therefore be said that molestation cases should be tried on the basis of individual matrix and not on the basis that a ` woman would not like to put her character at stake by hurling false accusations.