According to the Court, women are hesitant to report such offences because they fear it will harm not only their own reputation but also that of their families. The Bombay High Court recently noted, as part of its decision to overturn an order that discharged a male teacher for sexually harassing a female teacher, that women in our society frequently feel reluctant to report instances of sexual harassment or assault.
According to Justice Govind Sanap, in situations like these, women are hesitant to report the offence because they are afraid that it will not only affect their own reputation but also the reputation of their families.
“In such cases, the reputation of the family and the reputation and character of woman is at stake. It is to be noted that in such cases one has to be mindful of the fact that the character and reputation of a woman in our society is preserved and protected like invaluable jewel. The women in our society as well as the near and dear are, therefore, reluctant to come out in open against such a crime, which has a tendency and propensity to cause a direct dent to the character and reputation,” the order mentioned.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by an assistant teacher at a zilla parishad school who was challenging the orders of a magistrate court that exonerated the accused of the offence of outraging her modesty.
According to the prosecution, the accused teacher made several sexual advances towards the complainant woman, who was disabled. He once put his hand on her back and waist and asked for sexual favours. The woman’s family later filed a complaint, and a FIR was filed against the accused. While hearing the accused’s discharge petition, the magistrate court noted that the FIR was filed several months after the alleged incidents. It, therefore, disposed him on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Stating the facts, the High Court noted that it was a general rule that the delay in filing the FIR could not be used to discharge the defendant.
“The Court has to see the reason or explanation, if any, provided in the FIR for lodging the delay. The question in such cases is whether there is explanation for delay in lodging of the FIR and whether the said explanation is sufficient to accept the case of prosecution,” the judge said.
“Her children were grown up and educated. She further stated that in order to avoid defamation and humiliation in the society, she did not go to the police and lodge the report. In her report, she has stated that when all this become unbearable, she poured kerosene on her person and tried to set herself on fire. She has stated that she was saved by her husband and the neighbours.”
It further noted that subsequently, the victim had made a complaint to the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. This was forwarded to the Women Grievance Redressal Committee, which issued its final report, concluding that the accused was involved in a serious crime. The Court stated, while quashing the order dismissing the accused from the case, “There was no reason for her to malign her image and reputation in the society. She has narrated the same in her report. It is further pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has branded her report as a false report. In my view, at the stage of discharge, it is not permissible…In my view, if the material on record is examined in juxtaposition with this settled position, it becomes clear that the approach of the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with law.”
