Top
News Updates

"Rape Not Just Forcible Intercourse, It Means To Inhabit & Destroy Everything"; Bombay HC Denies Bail To Married Man Accused Under POCSO [Read Order]

Nitish Kashyap
14 Sep 2020 4:24 PM GMT
Rape Not Just Forcible Intercourse, It Means To Inhabit & Destroy Everything; Bombay HC Denies Bail To Married Man Accused Under POCSO [Read Order]
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court last week denied bail to a man accused of raping a 17-year-old girl who happened to be his business partner's daughter observing "rape is just not forcible intercourse, it means to inhabit and destroy everything."

Justice Bharati Dangre was hearing a bail application filed by 34-year-old Amit Patil, who was accused in a case registered with Abhiruchi Police Station, Sinhgad Road, Pune on a complaint by the minor victim girl under Sections 376, 354-D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and since the victim was a minor, provisions of Sections 3, 4, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were also invoked.

According to the victim, who was pursuing her education in 11th standard in a college at Pune, was known to the applicant, as he is a family friend and a business partner of her father. The victim girl was acquainted with the applicant for about two and half years. It was alleged by the victim that from the month of October, 2019, the applicant started texting her on her Whatsapp and expressed his liking towards her and also sought sexual favours from her, which was turned down by the victim girl.

Since the applicant was a family friend, the girl did not disclose that she was in receipt of indecent messages from the applicant. On December 6, 2019, the applicant forwarded her a message that he intended to discuss some important family matter with her and asked her to meet on the very next day. On the next day, when she was waiting for a bus to arrive, the applicant approached her on a two wheeler and asked her to accompany him. She was then taken to a nearby farmhouse and by making an emotional appeal and threatening that she if did not agree, he will commit suicide, she was forced to commit sexual intercourse with him. This happened two more times, the last incident being January 1, 2020.

Finally, on January 12, the victim girl told her parents about the incident and the report came to be lodged on January 30, 2020.

Advocate Venkatesh Shastry appeared on behalf of the applicant accused and submitted that the age of the victim is 17 years and though she is not a major in legal parlance, she had attained sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of her act and she was into relationship with the applicant on her own volition.

Pointing to various chat messages Adv Shastry said that the chat clearly reflected that there was a love relationship between the accused and the victim girl. Moreover, she was conscious of his intentions. He, however, denied that he is responsible for any such sexual assault on the victim.

As per the version of the victim girl, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse on three occasions, why she kept mum for a long period of time, Adv Shastry argued. He also argued that there is a delay of 18 days in lodging the FIR and that there can be no justification for the said delay.

At this juncture, Court intervened and said-

"The argument of the learned counsel that the victim was conscious of the intentions of the applicant, but still decided to accompany him wherever he asked her to is also a strange argument. The girl is young, at this age expected to be indecisive and could not straightly refuse when asked by the applicant, who is her father's friend."

After APP MM Deshmukh concluded his submissions, Justice Dangre observed-

"One thing is however clear that though the victim was adolescent, the applicant was a matured married man aged 34 years having two children. The whole episode of him indulging with a minor girl, a daughter of his business partner itself speaks of his intention. Going by the version of the learned counsel for the applicant that there was a love relationship or the relationship was on account of the advances made by the victim girl, the applicant was duty bound to bring this fact to the notice of her parents. He did nothing and the submission advanced, they shared a love relationship."

Thereafter, Court referred to the medical report of the minor victim girl and noted-

"The report from Sassoon General Hospital, on examination of the victim on 30th January, 2020 after taking into account the history, clinical examination finding and laboratory reports is to the effect that there is vaginal penetration with no fresh physical injury at present. In-spite of the said medical report on record, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not responsible for such sexual indulgence with the applicant."

When the Court observed that there is no apparent reason why the victim girl should particularly implicate the present applicant, the applicant accused's counsel submitted that it is the father of the victim girl, who wanted to take advantage of the situation as the applicant is his business partner.

"This argument is simply noted to be not worth consideration as there is no material supporting this submission, but merely a guess work of the applicant and this is no thing but an instance of Victim Blame," Court said.

Finally, while denying bail, Justice Dangre said that the applicant has taken advantage of the fiduciary relationship, which he shared with the victim girl and put her in a vulnerable situation-

"Rape" is just not a forcible intercourse, it means to inhabit and destroy everything. The applicant is seeking release on bail awaiting the trial. Considering the gravity of the accusation leveled against him and the testimony of the victim, which would be unfurled at the time of trial and in view of the aforesaid position emerging from the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant based on the material on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail."

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]




Next Story
Share it