Panaji, Oct 2 (TOI): The high court of Bombay at Goa has upheld the trial court's order directing a senior citizen to pay compensation of Rs 1,000 to a woman in a molestation case.

The high court rejected the senior citizen's claim that he unintentionally touched the breast of a 55-year-old victim after the court found that medical evidence proved that there was a minor injury on her body part.

The petitioner, who stays in a posh locality in Calangute, had challenged the judgment of the lower court directing him to pay compensation of Rs 1,000 to the woman, who is his neighbour, after he was convicted of outraging her modesty.

The subordinate court had also granted the senior citizen leniency and released him after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

"Had it been an innocent or inadvertent act, there would have been no question of any bruise unintentionally for which the doctor had to administer antibiotic and anti-inflammatory drugs to the prosecutrix," Justice Prithviraj K Chavan observed.

The high court noted that the petitioner did use criminal force to such an extent that it not only outraged the modesty of the woman, but also resulted in minor injury.

The petitioner had a motive to commit the offence, the court said after considering the testimonies in the case.

The incident occurred on October 27, 2010 when the victim had intervened as the accused tried to assault her guest, a foreign national, in a residential locality. The victim deposed before the trial court and stated that she pushed the accused when he attempted to molest her. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint with the police.

The accused defended himself by stating that his hand inadvertently touched the woman. He also pointed out that the woman had levelled the accusation owing to previous enmity.

Refering to the evidence of the doctor who had deposed that pain may remain for a month in such type of injuries, the court held that this would clearly demonstrate the amount of pressure with which the petitioner has conducted the act. During the hearing of the case, public prosecutor S R Rivankar argued that it is not an accidental act, but a deliberate one which is proved from the testimony of the medical expert.