Friendship Not License To Repeatedly Rape Victim, Beat Her Mercilessly: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that friendship is not a license to an accused to rape the victim repeatedly and beat her mercilessly. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied anticipatory bail to a man in a POCSO case and rejected his contention that it was a case of consensual relationship as he and the complainant were friends.“The contention on behalf of the applicant that...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that friendship is not a license to an accused to rape the victim repeatedly and beat her mercilessly.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied anticipatory bail to a man in a POCSO case and rejected his contention that it was a case of consensual relationship as he and the complainant were friends.
“The contention on behalf of the applicant that the applicant and the complainant were friends and therefore, it could be a case of consensual relationship, cannot be accepted by this Court, since even if the parties concerned were friends, friendship does not give any license to the applicant to rape the victim repeatedly, confine her in his friend's house and beat her mercilessly…” the Court said.
The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by a 17-year-old minor girl, alleging that she had known the accused for several years as a neighbour. She alleged that he allegedly took her to his friend's house, where he beat and repeatedly sexually assaulted her. It was her case that she did not initially report the incident or undergo medical examination out of fear.
As per the FIR, after an altercation between her mother and the accused's mother, she disclosed the incident to her mother, who then approached the police, leading to the registration of the FIR.
It was the accused's case that there was a delay of 11 days in filing of the FIR, followed by inconsistencies regarding the date of the incident.
The accused claimed that the relationship between him and the victim was consensual. However, the prosecution said that the allegations were serious, the investigation was ongoing, and the accused had not cooperated despite multiple previous bail attempts.
Dismissing the application, the Court found no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the accused that there was a delay in lodging the FIR or that there was a discrepancy regarding the date of the missing report of the victim, adding that the same cannot be conceded to at this stage as the same is a matter of trial.
“This Court is of the view that being a minor, she was under trauma and a sense of shame that had precluded her from disclosing anything to her parents and the police, as evidenced from her statement that she did not want to be medically examined in presence of her parents or inform the police about it, while her parents were present,” the Court said.
It noted that the accused had not joined the investigation, despite his anticipatory bail application having been either withdrawn or rejected on four occasions in the past.
“Therefore, in view of the foregoing circumstances, coupled with the serious nature of allegations levelled in the present case, prima facie corroborated by the material on record, this Court finds that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court concluded.
Title: SUMIT SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1341