Calling a Girl “Item” Is Sexual Harassment, Says Mumbai Court; Man Jailed for 1.5 Years
A Mumbai court has sentenced a 25-year-old businessman to 1.5 years in jail for sexually harassing a minor girl by calling her an “item”. The court said that using such language outrages the modesty of a woman and should be treated as a serious offence.
Special Judge SJ Ansari from the Mumbai Sessions Court said that calling a girl “item” is a sexual and disrespectful term. This falls under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with outraging the modesty of a woman. The man was also charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
“Using the word ‘item’ objectifies girls in a sexual way. This clearly shows the accused’s intent to insult her modesty. Such acts should be punished strictly to stop this kind of street harassment,” the judge said.
The Case Background
The incident occurred in 2015, when the man allegedly teased the girl while she was returning home from school. He pulled her hair and asked, “Where are you going?” When the girl protested, he started abusing her and claimed that she couldn’t do anything against him.
She immediately called 100 (police helpline), but the man fled the scene before police arrived. Later, she filed a complaint with her father at the local police station, leading to the registration of an FIR.
During the trial, the accused claimed that he and the girl were friends and her parents didn’t approve of their bond, which led to the complaint.
Court Findings
The court said the girl’s testimony was truthful and consistent. The judge noted that the accused offered no proof to suggest the girl had any reason to lie.
“The prosecution proved that the man was repeatedly following the minor girl and harassing her with sexual intent,” the court said.
The judge added that even though the accused had no prior criminal record, his actions were serious enough to deny probation or show any leniency.
“There is enough evidence that he outraged the modesty of a minor girl. Showing mercy in such a case is not justified,” the court concluded.
Case Title: State v. Abrar Noor Mohd Khan
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
