Rape Laws Are Women-Centric But Men Aren't Always Wrong, Says HC

The Allahabad High Court said that even though laws on sexual offences are women-centric, it doesn't imply that the male partner is always at fault. The court made this judgement while upholding the acquittal of a man accused of rape in the pretext of marriage. A complaint was registered against him by a woman in 2019 and he was chargesheeted in 2020 for rape and casteist slur. The trial court, earlier this year, acquitted him of only the rape charges. So he filed a petition against the judgement in the high court. 

A division bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla ruled over the case and said that the burden of proof lies on both the woman and the man. The court said, "No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a women-centric (sic) enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them." 

The background of the case

As per the reports, in 2019, the woman filed a complaint against the man for having a sexual relationship with her with the promise of marriage which he later refused. She also accused him of making derogatory remarks about her caste. 

The man was charge-sheeted in 2020 for rape and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court acquitted the rape charges but convicted him under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). When the trial court refused to acquit him for casteist slur, the man filed a petition in the high court. 

The woman also filed a petition against the man's acquittal in the rape case.

As per man, the relationship was consensual. Moreover, he refused to marry because the woman lied about her caste. She wasn't a 'Yadav' as the man assumed her to be. The documents and contentions submitted before the high court revealed that the woman had married in 2010 and was living separately. 

She even denied her marital status and pleaded that the court ignore her name in the family register during the trial court proceedings. 

Court quashes the charges of rape and casteism

Noting all this, the high court upheld the trial court's judgement of quashing rape charges as the idea of breaching the promise of marriage stands null and void. The court said, "On this score, the learned trial court has rightly given a finding that under circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the accused-respondent has trapped her in the false pretext of marriage. Secondly, assuming for the sake of argument, that some promise was extended to her but after the emergence of this new fact, that victim is already married to xxx and that marriage still subsists, then any amount of promise to marry would automatically get evaporated." 

As far as the accusation of casteism was concerned, the judges said that caste matters in the process and permanence of marriage in our society. Since the woman hid her caste or could not clarify it, the charges do not apply. 

Court: Who is befooling whom?

The court raised the question of who is befooling whom by saying, "Therefore, it can be easily inferred that a lady who is already married and without dissolution of her earlier marriage and concealing her caste has maintained the physical relationship for good 5 years without any objection and hesitation and both of them have visited numbers of hotel, lodges at Allahabad and Lucknow and enjoyed the company of each other."

The court hence upheld the trial court's acquittal order. The judges said that it is not plausible that a woman had pre-marital sex for five years under the pretext of a promise of marriage.

"It is an unswallowable proposition that a weaker sex is being used by the male partner for five good years and she keeps on permitting him on the so-called false pretext of marriage. Both of them are major and they understand the gravity of the situation and the far-reaching repercussion of pre-marital sex still, they maintained this relationship in different places, and different cities, which clearly indicates that this acquisition that she was subjected to sexual harassment and rape cannot be accepted."