VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 339
685
State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar,
1991 (1) SLR SC 140 : AIR 1991 SC 207
Inspector, Bhiwandi Town Police Station (respondent) was
charged with having visited the hutment of Banubi wife of Babu Sheikh
in the night all alone in police uniform and tried to ravish her and
when she resisted he falsely made out as if he carried out a prohibition
raid. The respondent’s version was that he raided her hutment on
receipt of information that she was dealing in illicit liquor, although
nothing incriminating was found in her house. In the course of the
departmental inquiry held against him, it came out that Banubi was a
woman of easy virtue and was having extra-marital relationship with
the manager of Bhiwandi talkies. She admitted that she was his
mistress and she was known as an ‘awara’ (vagrant) in the locality.
The respondent was dismissed and on appeal it was reduced to
removal from service. The High Court of Bombay quashed the order
of removal, among others, on the ground that since Banubi is an
unchaste woman it would be extremely unsafe to allow the fortune
and career of a Government official to be put in jeopardy upon the
uncorroborated version of such a woman who makes no secret of
her illicit intimacy with another person.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the High Court and
restored the order of removal. Supreme Court observed that Banubi
was honest enough to admit the dark side of her life. Even a woman
of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy
as and when he likes. So also it is not open to any and every person
to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to
protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her wish.
She is equally entitled to the protection of law. Merely because she
is a woman of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be thrown overboard.
At the most the officer called upon to evaluate her evidence would
be required to administer caution unto himself before accepting her
evidence. But in the present case her evidence is not only
corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of her husband
but also of the PSI and other members of the police party, who rushed