The Supreme Court, while quashing the conviction of a man convicted in a rape case, has said that a consensual relationship between the complainant woman and the accused later took a criminal color due to a misunderstanding.
The Court (Supreme Court Rape Case Verdict) considered it conclusive that both the parties have got married with mutual consent and are now living together. The court said that this was one of those rare cases where quashing of both the conviction and sentence was necessary in the interest of justice.
Justice A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said in its judgment that when the matter came up before the apex court, after serious consideration of the facts and circumstances, it became clear that the relationship between the two parties was not based on any fraud or criminal intent. The bench said that if both have decided to live a life with each other, then it is the duty of the court to ensure complete justice.
The court (Supreme Court Rape Case Verdict) said in its decision that the complainant and the accused got married in the month of July this year and since then they are living together as husband and wife. The bench also said that this case is exceptional because the intervention of the court ultimately led to the release of the appellant from his conviction and the sentence awarded to him. Earlier, the lower court had convicted the accused and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine.
This case was related to Madhya Pradesh, where the trial court had convicted the accused. Later the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected his plea to suspend his sentence.
The accused approached the apex court against this. During the hearing of the case, the Supreme Court talked to the accused and the woman in the presence of their parents and found that both wanted to marry with mutual consent. After this, the court granted interim bail to the accused, during which the marriage of both was solemnized.
The bench said in its decision that in exercise of the special powers granted under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court has quashed the complaint, conviction and sentence. The court made it clear that it was necessary to do complete justice in this case, because the nature of the relationship was misinterpreted and converted into a criminal case.
The court also noted that the accused and the woman had met through an internet medium in the year 2015. Gradually the closeness between the two grew and relations were formed with mutual consent.
The woman said that she trusted the assurance of marriage, whereas the accused’s postponement of the marriage date made her feel insecure. In this mental state, the woman had lodged an FIR in November 2021.
The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Rape Case Verdict) said that it is clear from the facts that the intention of marriage was present between the two from the beginning and it would not be appropriate to consider it a case of false promise.
The court also underlined that every case where the relationship breaks down cannot automatically be categorized as criminal. Through this decision, the Court has emphasized the need for consent, trust and close examination of circumstances.
Comments are closed.