As per the case the appellant (accused) who was 18 years of age as on 15 March 2012.,He had gone to the victim's house to deliver some documents.the victim was alone at home.the accused sat on the chair.The victim gave the accused water to drink.and started doing her job.After some time, the accused got up from the chair and, while stroking the girl's head and back, said that she has grown up..Due to which the victim became uncomfortable and started crying loudly..Hearing the screams, the people of the neighborhood came and caught hold of the accused. The girl's mother was called. The accused was a former acquaintance, so he was let go. Later, the girl's mother went to the accused's house to warn the accused.The accused had allegedly threatened the girl's mother.Thereafter an offense was registered against the accused.The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him.The sessions court also upheld the sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court. The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court against the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.Justice Bharti Dangre of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court heard the appeal.Setting aside the conviction of 28-year-old Mayur Yelor, Justice Dangre's bench said that rubbing a hand on the head and back of a minor girl without any wrong intention does not amount to outraging her modesty.The statement of the accused also shows that he treated the girl like a child. Justice Bharti Dangre said that in the case of outraging the modesty of a woman, it is necessary that the intention of the man was to outrage the modesty of the woman.This is not a case of outraging modesty in any way. The accused only touched the girl's head and back. Justice Dangre said that even the victim has not said in her statements that the accused had touched her with wrong intention.The victim has only said that she did not like being touched in such a way that she felt uncomfortable.No such evidence has been brought before the court by the prosecution to show that the accused had acted with the intention of defaming the victim.
