Observing that “instead of being remorseful, he is shameless to the extent of using demeaning words against the complainant even before the court”, a Delhi court has sentenced a man to three years’ in jail for sexually harassing a woman in 2013.
Trial court
The trial court had acquitted Sarver, stating that the complainant had concealed material facts regarding her relationship with the him. The conviction came on an appeal by the police against the trial court order.
The convict, who is married and has a child, had threatened to throw acid on the victim when she refused to marry him.
“The convict himself submits that he is married with one-year-old child, whereas the complainant till date has remained unmarried as she ‘is a characterless woman as well as because of the mean character of her family’. The convict has been warned against using such kind of language. The utterance of the convict itself is suggestive of the fact that instead of being remorseful he is shameless to the extent of using demeaning words against the complainant even before the court and seems to not have learnt any lesson from his past mistakes,” Special Judge Savita Rao observed while sentencing him.
The counsel for the accused pleaded with the court for lenient punishment submitting that he had not troubled the complainant after the date of the incident, as admitted by her in her cross-examination.
Moreover, the appeal had not been preferred by the complainant but by the State. However, the court rejected his submission.
‘Patriarchal notions’
“Taking of lenient view in these circumstances will only convey a wrong message to society and to such kind of people that they are above the law and can be let off even after demeaning the womanhood,” the judge said.
“Sexual abuse against women is often a result of unequal power equations both real and perceived between men and women and is also strongly influenced by patriarchal notions of society, which seems to be the reason that the accused was not willing to take No to his marriage proposal to the complainant,” the court said.