Asserting that “the lady is the victim of crime and not a perpetrator”, a local court has dismissed the bail plea of a doctor accused of molesting his patient, who hails from the USA.
Notwithstanding her nationality, the court observed that that “merely because the complainant took two to three days to ponder over before lodging a complaint, her complaint could not brushed aside”.
The woman was reportedly molested periodically during her treatment by the resident doctor at a prominent private hospital in the city on March 24.
The woman was reportedly awaiting a physical examination as a formality before being discharged after undergoing treatment for five days.
Following her complaint three days after the incident, the accused was arrested and has been in judicial custody since then on charges under Section 354 of the IPC.
On Tuesday, while seeking bail for the accused, the defence counsel told the court of Additional Sessions Judge Girish Kathpalia that the woman was examined in the general ward and that if there was any misconduct, the patient would have raised the alarm.
However, acknowledging the fact that the woman was scared since despite the fact that there was misconduct by the doctor where she felt extremely uncomfortable and confused, the judge dismissed the counsel’s argument stating “…frustration and disgust of the complainant is writ large in the complaint itself that she wanted to yell at the accused but did not want to face him alone”.
“… As regards the silence of the complainant, I fail to agree with the counsel for the accused that an Indian woman would remain silent due to embarrassment after molestation but a foreigner lady would not. Rather, a foreigner lady might be much more wary of getting into any police complaint and proceedings in India under the fear of prolonged litigation and proceedings. Therefore, merely because the complainant took 2-3 days to ponder over before lodging a complaint, her complaint cannot be brushed aside. Even otherwise, the lady is the victim of crime, not a perpetrator thereof,” the order stated.
“It needs to be emphasised that cases of sexual violence against a lady are not merely a violence against her body.Such cases are an exhibit of sexual discrimination and an effort to express masculine instincts over a lady and have to be dealt with sternly by law. Such acts of aggression are not at all an expression of love or passion or even lust, but are an effort to demonstrate the misplaced notion of male predominance, which is a serious abrogation of not just decency but even basic human rights of the victim,” the judge observed.
“Merely because the accused is a doctor by profession, in the absence of any reasonable explanation of his alleged conduct, he does not deserve a lenient response under law… considering the overall circumstances described, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail. The application is dismissed,” the judge said.