Businessman Sentenced to One Year Rigorous Imprisonment for Molesting Female Bank Employee During Address Verification Visit
Businessman Sentenced to One Year Rigorous Imprisonment for Molesting Female Bank Employee During Address Verification Visit
Court Highlights Workplace Safety Concerns for Women, Rejects Plea for Leniency
In a significant verdict underscoring the need for women’s safety in professional settings, particularly during unsupervised interactions with clients, a magistrate’s court in Mumbai has sentenced a 54-year-old Malad-based businessman to one year of rigorous imprisonment for outraging the modesty of a female bank officer.
As reported by Toi, the incident took place on November 27, 2020, when the victim, a 27-year-old deputy manager at a private bank, visited the residence of the accused, Narendra Sagvekar, for address verification as part of routine procedures for opening a bank account. Sagvekar had visited the branch the previous day but failed to provide a photograph, prompting the need for a home visit.
According to court records, the woman reached Sagvekar’s residence around 12:30 pm. He was alone at home. After completing the verification process and as she prepared to leave, Sagvekar allegedly used criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty. The court noted that he kissed her on the neck and cheek, held her tightly, and inappropriately touched her. The woman managed to push him away and flee the premises. She immediately informed her bank manager, operations manager, and a colleague, and later filed a complaint at Malad Police Station.
Sagvekar was arrested on December 17, 2020, and granted bail two days later.
During the trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses, including the victim and her colleagues. Rejecting the accused’s claim that the complaint was fabricated due to his refusal to entertain her savings plan suggestions, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate BN Chikne observed that the woman had no motive to file a false complaint. The magistrate also dismissed the defence argument that the complaint was lodged merely because the accused did not respond to a WhatsApp message from the informant.
“In this case, I came to the conclusion that when the informant was on her duty and went to the house of the accused for his address verification, the accused was at home alone and applied force on her and outraged her modesty,” the court stated in its judgment.
The magistrate took serious note of the offence being committed against a woman engaged in official duties and classified it as one of “moral turpitude.” Refusing to extend the benefit of probation, the court sentenced Sagvekar to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000.
Addressing the delay in reporting the incident, the court noted that hesitation and fear of social exposure are common responses in such cases, especially for Indian women. “Getting panicked after such an incident is not an abnormal thing. Such incidents can cause a great deal of disruption in her life. Therefore, an Indian lady thinks 100 times before exposing herself before society,” Magistrate Chikne said, asserting that the delay was adequately explained.
The court also acknowledged that assaults occurring in private spaces often lack eyewitnesses and should not be dismissed for that reason alone.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the risks women professionals face during field visits and reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability for such violations.
