Delhi: Man held guilty of sexually harassing woman in running train

New Delhi: A man has been held guilty of sexually harassing a woman on board a train by a Delhi court which said incidents of violence are committed against women because of their gender.

Metropolitan Magistrate Manu Vedwan relied on testimonies of the complainant woman and her husband and said they were firm throughout the case and their deposition cannot be discarded.

"Offences against women are basically those offences which are gender based meaning that the acts of violence are committed against women expressly because they are women.

"The United Nations Declaration on Elimination of Violence against Women states that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men," the court said.

The court is likely to pass later this week its order on sentence in the case.

The court convicted Manoj Kumar Singh, a native of Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh, for the offences under sections 354A (sexual harassment by way of unwelcome physical contact or making sexually coloured remarks) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of woman) of the IPC.

According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged at New Delhi Railway Station Police Station against Singh on the allegation that he had assaulted the woman on board the Poorva Express in March 2013, when she was returning from Mugalsarai to Delhi after taking her examination.

She had said that near Aligarh, some men boarded the train and started nuisance throughout the way to Delhi by using abusive language and making obscene gestures.

Singh, while deboarding the train, assaulted the complainant and thereafter, the woman's husband complained to police officials at the station and the accused was caught.

The other co-accused had fled and could not be nabbed.

During the trial, Singh claimed he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case.

The court, in its judgement, said there was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the woman and her husband who may be called interested witnesses but their depositions were clear, unambiguous.