Supreme Court: Pained by the sorrowful fate of a young girl who committed suicide as an outcome of the psychological harassment and continuous eve-teasing by the accused, the Court said that in a civilized society male chauvinism has no room. A woman has her own space as a man has. She enjoys as much equality under Article 14 of the Constitution as a man does. The right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be violated by indulging in obnoxious act of eve-teasing.
Stating that eve-teasing is causing harassment to women in educational institutions, public places, parks, railways stations and other public places which only go to show that requisite sense of respect for women has not been socially cultivated, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar and M.M. Shantanagouda, JJ said that why the women in this country cannot be allowed to live in peace and lead a life that is empowered with a dignity and freedom.
In the present case, where the trial court had acquitted the accused by disregarding the version of parents of the deceased and other witnesses and treating the dying declaration as invalid on the ground that the deceased was not in a position to speak and there was no medical certificate appended as regards her fitness as the deceased had sustained 80% burn injuries as she had set herself ablaze in an attempt to end her life, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had reversed the order of acquittal. It was held that there is no reason to disregard the dying declaration as the Head Constable has recorded it as narrated by the deceased and the deceased has also written few words about the accused.
Stating that the instant case portrays the deplorable depravity of the appellant that has led to a heart-breaking situation for a young girl who has been compelled to put an end to her life, the Court held that the High Court has absolutely correctly reversed the judgment of acquittal and imposed the sentence. It has appositely exercised the jurisdiction and we concur with the same. [Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 509, decided on 28.04.2017]
