Concerned about the lack of security for women passengers in local trains,the Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned the Railway Protection Force (RPF) about the lack of female constables. Following a newspaper report of a molestation victim allegedly snubbed by the RPF personnel on June 19,the High Court had asked the state government to make molestation a non-bailable offence. Why are there no women constables in the railway compartments? Chief Justice Mohit Shah asked the RPF. Representing the RPF,Lawyer Suresh Kumar told the court that there was an acute shortage of women personnel and said that although they are not present inside the trains,they are deputed on railway platforms. According to the June 21 report,a 25-year-old woman was accosted by a man who jumped into the ladies compartment of the train at Nerul station and allegedly unzipped his pants. The woman was allegedly asked to indulge in obscene acts and was threatened to be thrown off the train if she resisted. She later approached the RPF at Thane,the report said. However,the RPF officers told her that if there was no robbery or attempt to rape,she should not lodge a complaint. Jyoti Pawar,lawyer for the Government Railway Police,told the court that since the accused had not made any physical contact with the victim,there is no reason to charge the accused with criminal intimidation. At this,Chief Justice Shah asked,Why should the police authorities give the benefit of doubt to the accused? In any case,if the accused person forced her not to move by verbally threatening her,it is sufficient to invoke the charge of criminal intimidation. The judges also directed that the interim report of the Dharmadhikari Committee,constituted in October 2009 by the state government to consider the question of a tougher punishment for molestation,be placed before the court. Meanwhile,counsels for the GRP and the RPF passed the buck over responsibility for the incident and the failure to register an offence. Kumar contended it was the GRP personnel who had dismissed her complaint as frivolous and asked questions which should not be asked. Replying to these allegations,Pawar submitted that the victim had not made any complaint immediately after the incident,but did so after she came back from Pune,where she had gone to appear for an examination.
