Top
News Updates

Rape Trial: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Application Upon Accused's Plea That Victim Aged 17 Yrs 8 Months Had Consented To Act

Mehal Jain
7 Dec 2020 4:12 PM GMT
Rape Trial: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Application Upon Accuseds Plea That Victim Aged 17 Yrs 8 Months Had Consented To Act
x

Noting the submission that allegedly the victim had consented to the act, the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a bail plea of a man accused of rape of a girl, who was a minor aged 17 years 8 months at the time of the offence.The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi was hearing a SLP against a September order of the Bombay High Court denying bail to...

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?

Noting the submission that allegedly the victim had consented to the act, the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a bail plea of a man accused of rape of a girl, who was a minor aged 17 years 8 months at the time of the offence.

The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi was hearing a SLP against a September order of the Bombay High Court denying bail to 34-year-old Amit Raoso Patil accused in a case registered on a complaint of the victim under Sections 376, 354-D, 506 of the IPC, and since the victim was a minor, provisions of Sections 3, 4, 11 and 12 of the POCSO were also invoked. Refusing bail to the petitioner accused of raping the 17-year-old girl who happened to be his business partner's daughter, the High Court had observed "rape is just not forcible intercourse, it means to inhabit and destroy everything"
"She had consented to the act", urged the counsel for the petitioner on Monday.
"Her consent is immaterial. She was a minor at that time...she was less than 18 years old as per your own averment", remarked Justice Gupta.
I was not aware at the time that she is a minor...but she was 17 years and 8 months old even then", pressed the counsel.
"That may be relevant under the Juvenile Justice Act in case of a 'juvenile in conflict with law', but not in IPC. In IPC, there is no such thing...You cannot raise this 'consent' argument here", said Justice Gupta.
However, after a brief conference, the bench decided to issue notice on the plea.
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.


Next Story
Share it