CASE NAME	State of Maharashtra v. Rovena, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Bom) 15
CITATION	C.C. 7000138/PW/2021
COURT	Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 70th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai
BENCH	Magistrate M.V. Chavhan
COMPLAINANT	State of Maharashtra Through Dongri Police Station
ACCUSED	Rovena Aadnya Amit Bhosle
DECIDED ON	22nd November 2022

INTRODUCTION

A major legal matter was addressed by the Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rovena, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Bom) 15: can a woman be held accountable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging another woman’s modesty? In a public hallway, Rovena Bhosale, the accused, was accused of abusing her neighbor, the complainant, by physically hitting her and tearing her nightgown in front of onlookers. 

Section 354 IPC, which punishes assault or the use of criminal force with the aim to offend a woman’s modesty, was considered by the court for its relevance. The defense argued that a female offender could not be subject to this clause. The court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that Section 354 IPC is gender-neutral with regard to the offender and applies equally to any person who commits such a crime, regardless of gender. 

As a result, the court found Rovena Bhosale guilty under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC and imposed a fine and a year of hard labor. This ruling emphasizes the idea that laws safeguarding people’s modesty apply to everyone, without exceptions for offenders depending on their gender.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The informant and her neighbor, the accused, who lives in the same building and on the same level, are at odds in this case. Frequent verbal abuses and arguments resulted from the accused’s suspicion that the informant had given the informant’s mother information about her. Tensions were made worse by their close proximity since the accused’s kitchen and the informant’s restroom could be heard talking to each other. Because of the informant’s friendly relationship with the accused’s mother, the accused allegedly didn’t like the informant.

The accused started verbally abusing the informant from her kitchen about ten days before to the incident, using foul language and insults in the local dialect. By bringing up the informant’s father’s second marriage and wishing harm on the informant’s children, the accused made disparaging statements about her family history.

After the accused verbally assaulted the informant in the hallway on September 19, 2020, at approximately 8:00 p.m., a neighbor named Naznin Mahate called to warn the informant. The offender flung a chappal at the informant when she approached him. After being questioned more, the accused verbally assaulted the informant, hit her with the chappal once again, and encouraged her husband to hurt the informant.

As the informant and the accused fought, the informant’s nightgown was torn, and the accused continued to verbally attack her; the situation became more heated. Cecelia Martis and several floor-level neighbors were among the witnesses who saw the occurrence. The accused persisted despite the informant’s and the accused’s husband’s attempts to defuse the situation.

Feeling humiliated and unable to control the altercation, the informant reported the incident by calling the police emergency line (100). After that, she and her husband went to the police station, where she had trouble breathing and was told to go to the hospital.

CR no. 121/2020 was registered against the accused for several violations after the informant filed a First Information Report (FIR) the next day. The police took the informant’s medical certificate, confiscated the chappal and ripped nightgown, and recorded witness testimony throughout the inquiry. The accused was charged with the following counts when the inquiry was concluded: verbal abuse, physical assault, and public humiliation of the informant.

ISSUES RAISED

• Do the relevant legal provisions consider the accused’s activities to be criminal offenses?
• Is the evidence presented by the informant and witnesses reliable and adequate to prove the accused’s guilt?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the complainant

• Ld. APP said that the informant had made a clear statement in accordance with the FIR’s contention. The evidence of two eyewitnesses strongly supports the informant’s account. Regarding the accused’s defense, there is no room for it in light of the tangible evidence that has been presented. 
• Witness Naznin Mahate added that she was standing close to the elevator after closing her door. There was also the other individual from the same building. Everything was visible to her. The accused approached the informant once more and began beating her with a chappal. The accused ripped her pajamas. Because of the aforementioned occurrence, the informant was fully nude, and the guys were also present. 
• According to Ld. APP, mere hurt cannot be attributed to a specific injury. 

Arguments on behalf of the accused

• The accused’s Learned attorney contended that the fraudulent FIR and the bogus evidence were recorded. Actually, there isn’t an incident at all. The accused’s attorney raised the defense that the informant had a cordial relationship with the accused’s mother and had only filed a fake FIR against her in order to harass the accused. 
• Additionally, the Learned representative for the accused adamantly maintained that the informant’s and the other two eyewitnesses’ testimony contained inconsistencies, omissions, and improvements. The improvements and omissions are of a kind that destroys the prosecution’s case. 
• The accused’s knowledgeable attorney also contested the presence of these two eyewitnesses at the scene of the occurrence. He, therefore, prayed that their evidence would not be relied upon. 
• The informed counsel for the accused contended that, despite the fact that there is proof that the accused physically assaulted the informant using force, the medical certificate makes no mention of any harm done to the informant. 

JUDGMENT

The purpose of Section 354 IPC is to protect public morals and decency. Therefore, someone should face consequences if they use illegal force on a lady, knowing that her modesty will be offended or with the intention of offending her. It is important to remember that the accused in this case is also a woman. She is expecting three kids. Her younger son is one and a half years old. She does not have any more criminal records. Therefore, taking into account the aforementioned arguments, I believe that the following statement will achieve the goals of justice. Consequently, I suggest the following order to provide the final impact and respond to points no. 5 and 6:

Under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Rovena @ Adnya Amit Bhosle is exonerated of the offenses punishable under sections 324, 504, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 

By virtue of section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused is hereby found guilty of the offenses punishable under sections 323 and 354 of the IPC. 

In connection with the offense punishable under section 323 IPC, the accused is sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees One Thousand Only). If the fine is not paid, the accused will be subject to one month of rigorous imprisonment. 

Regarding the offense punishable under section 354 IPC, the accused is sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) in default of six months of harsh imprisonment. 

CONCLUSION

In interpreting Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes actions meant to offend a woman’s modesty, the State of Maharashtra v. Rovena case is noteworthy. This clause has historically been used in situations involving male offenders. Nonetheless, the Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court elucidated the gender-neutral character of the offender provision. The court emphasized that the goal of the law is to safeguard women’s modesty and dignity from everyone, regardless of the gender of the offender. When it comes to the implementation of criminal law, this progressive approach is consistent with the values of equality and impartiality.

The evidence, including witness statements and supporting physical evidence, was carefully reviewed by the court. Rovena Bhosale, the accused, was charged with attacking her neighbor, the complainant, by tearing her nightgown during a public fight that several people observed. The evidence demonstrated that the accused’s conduct was deliberate and intended to degrade and humiliate the complainant in public. The court reaffirmed that such crimes are categorically illegal by citing Section 354, irrespective of the identity or gender of the perpetrator.

The ruling also took into account Section 323 IPC, which dealt with the physical assault that was a part of the main violation. The prosecution’s case was enhanced by the court’s reliance on witness testimony and the accused’s inability to mount a strong defense, which led to a conviction.

The ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Rovena highlights the gender-neutral applicability of Section 354 IPC, which represents a significant advancement in Indian jurisprudence. It upholds the idea that an offender’s gender is irrelevant when it comes to the legal protection of modesty and dignity. The court maintained the belief that social norms and legal requirements could not permit exceptions based on preconceived assumptions about the gender of criminals by finding Rovena Bhosale guilty.

Additionally, this case makes a powerful statement regarding equity and accountability in the criminal justice system. It emphasizes that laws created to protect people’s rights and dignity will be applied consistently and without exception. The court’s ruling serves as a deterrent against similar crimes in addition to guaranteeing justice for the victim.

To sum up, the case emphasizes the judiciary’s function in ensuring equitable implementation of criminal law and gender-neutral interpretations of it. It affirms the sanctity of a person’s modesty as a right guaranteed by Indian law and promotes the fundamental principle of equality before the law.