The Supreme Court has granted interim protection from arrest to a ‘rape’ accused who later married the victim.
Jaigopal Saiyam was accused of kidnapping a girl and committing rape on her repeatedly. He had approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that he married with the prosecutrix and they were living together.
Rejecting his bail plea, the high court had agreed with the public prosecutor who resisted the plea contending that merely on the ground that he has married with the prosecutrix, he cannot be treated liberally.
A special leave petition filed against this order came for admission before the bench comprising of Justice Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee.
Hearing the counsel, the bench ordered: “The petitioner is said to have got married the prosecutrix. Issue notice. There shall be interim protection from arrest to the petitioner, until further orders from this Court.”
It is pertinent to recollect that, in July 2015, the Supreme Court had pronounced a judgment in which it categorically observed that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the concept of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of.
“Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error,” it was observed in State of MP vs. Madanlal.
Even after this judgment, some high courts have even quashed rape cases recording the factum of marriage between rape accused and victim. Some others have reduced the sentence imposed on the accused to period already undergone.