Mumbai, October 26: A rape victim’s consent to intercourse in exchange for marriage with the accused is not tantamount to consensual sex, held a Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court on October 6 while upholding a conviction in a 2007 case.
The 16-year-old victim, a schoolgirl, was raped by her neighbour, Vanraj alias Sunil Masraj, 21, when she was alone at her residence at Hingana, Nagpur, in 2005. Masraj allegedly threatened to kill her if she revealed the truth to anyone. But when girl became pregnant, the two garlanded each other at a local temple and lived together in Masraj’s house.
But when he abandoned her in 2007, she filed a complaint ofrape and criminal intimidation. She delivered a male child duringthe pendency of the trial. Masraj was convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and fine last year.
Appealing against the order, Masraj’s counsel argued that it was a case of consensual sex, not rape, as the girl had had consented to the intercourse after they got married.
But Justice AP Bhangale observed: “A mere act of garlanding the prosecutrix (the girl) in a temple can not absolve the appellant of the earlier heinous act of forcible rape under threat of killing her. The intention of the appellant to leave the prosecutrix alone and leave house indefinitely without maintaining her is mala fide.”
Therefore, the court held that the act of forcible sexual intercourse and the continuing sexual relations after the so-called marriage came within the meaning of rape.
–Agencies–