{"id":236407,"date":"2020-09-28T19:56:42","date_gmt":"2020-09-28T14:26:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=236407"},"modified":"2020-11-30T18:48:32","modified_gmt":"2020-11-30T13:18:32","slug":"sc-acquits-a-man-in-a-rape-case-dating-back-to-1999-how-a-failed-love-affair-led-to-a-21-year-long-legal-battle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/28\/sc-acquits-a-man-in-a-rape-case-dating-back-to-1999-how-a-failed-love-affair-led-to-a-21-year-long-legal-battle\/","title":{"rendered":"SC acquits a man in a rape case dating back to 1999| How a failed love affair led to a 21-year-long legal battle"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has acquitted \u00a0a man in a rape case dating back to 1999 after it as proved that the prosecutrix had consensually established physical relations with him out of love.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 the consent of the prosecutrix was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and which opportunity was available to her, because of her deep\u00adseated love for the appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal human behaviour are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

BACKGROUND<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The appellant had challenged his conviction under sections 376, 323 and 341 IPC sentencing him to seven years, one year and one month respectively with fine and a default stipulation. The prosecutrix had filed and FIR in 1999 against the appellant alleging that four years ago the appellant had outraged her modesty at the point of a knife and had since been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. She had also stayed at his house for fifteen days during which also he established physical relations with her. Five days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R, the appellant had established physical relations with her. She further claimed that the appellant had cheated her as now he was going to solemnise his marriage with another girl in a few days.<\/p>\n

CONSIDERATIONS BY THE COURT <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Age of the prosecutrix<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The prosecutrix in her deposition dithered with regard to her age by first stating she was sixteen years on the date of occurrence and then corrected herself to state she was thirteen. She had alleged that the appellant outraged her modesty at the point of a knife while she was on way to school but no name of the school has been disclosed either by the prosecutrix or her parents.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf she was studying in a school then why proof of age was not furnished on basis of documentary evidence such as school register etc.?\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Also, prosecutrix\u2019s cousin aged about 30 years deposed that she was six years younger to him. Hence, a wide variation in the evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix could be seen. The Court, hence, noticed,<\/p>\n

\u201cIn absence of positive evidence being led by the prosecution with regard to the age of the prosecutrix on the date of occurrence, the possibility of her being above the age of eighteen years on the date cannot be ruled out. The benefit of doubt therefore has to be given to the appellant.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Examination under Section 313 CrPC<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him.<\/strong><\/span> A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

However, a bare perusal of the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the present case revealed it to be extremely casual and perfunctory in nature.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Factum of love affair between the accused and the prosecutrix <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n