Prayagraj (UP), Acquitting a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, the Allahabad High Court said the law on sexual offenses is truly woman-centric but that does not mean the male partner is always in the wrong.
While delivering the verdict, the division bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla also said that in such cases, the burden of proof lies on the complainant and the accused.
"No doubt, Chapter XVI (on) 'Sexual Offences' is a woman-centric Act to protect the dignity and respect of a woman and girl and rightly so, but when assessing the circumstances, it is not the sole And every time the male partner is wrong, the burden is on both,” the court said.
The court was hearing the complainant's appeal against the verdict acquitting the accused in a rape case. The accused were also chargesheeted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.In 2019, the victim lodged a complaint with the police in Prayagraj that the accused had sexual relations with her after promising marriage but later refused to marry her. She also claimed that he had talked about her caste in a derogatory manner.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused in 2020.
The trial court, Prayagraj, on February 8, 2024, acquitted the accused of rape charges and convicted him only under section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After this the complainant approached the High Court.In his reply, the accused told the court that the said relationship was consensual and he had refused to marry the woman after learning that she did not belong to the 'Yadav' caste as he had claimed.
Considering the pleadings and material on record, the court found that the complainant had married a man in 2010, but two years later she started living separately. It was also said that the complainant had hidden the fact that she was already married.
While upholding the acquittal verdict given by the trial court, the High Court said, "It can easily be inferred that a woman who is already married and without breaking her previous marriage and without concealing her caste, Maintains physical relations for five years without any objection." and hesitation
It added, “The two visited several hotels and lodges in Allahabad and Lucknow and enjoyed each other's company.It is difficult to determine who is fooling whom."
In this regard, it was observed that the complainant was unable to clarify her claim regarding her caste.
In this background, the Court concluded that the trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused as the victim's claims of sexual assault and rape could not be accepted.
While delivering the verdict, the division bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla also said that in such cases, the burden of proof lies on the complainant and the accused.
"No doubt, Chapter XVI (on) 'Sexual Offences' is a woman-centric Act to protect the dignity and respect of a woman and girl and rightly so, but when assessing the circumstances, it is not the sole And every time the male partner is wrong, the burden is on both,” the court said.
The court was hearing the complainant's appeal against the verdict acquitting the accused in a rape case. The accused were also chargesheeted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.In 2019, the victim lodged a complaint with the police in Prayagraj that the accused had sexual relations with her after promising marriage but later refused to marry her. She also claimed that he had talked about her caste in a derogatory manner.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused in 2020.
The trial court, Prayagraj, on February 8, 2024, acquitted the accused of rape charges and convicted him only under section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After this the complainant approached the High Court.In his reply, the accused told the court that the said relationship was consensual and he had refused to marry the woman after learning that she did not belong to the 'Yadav' caste as he had claimed.
Considering the pleadings and material on record, the court found that the complainant had married a man in 2010, but two years later she started living separately. It was also said that the complainant had hidden the fact that she was already married.
While upholding the acquittal verdict given by the trial court, the High Court said, "It can easily be inferred that a woman who is already married and without breaking her previous marriage and without concealing her caste, Maintains physical relations for five years without any objection." and hesitation
It added, “The two visited several hotels and lodges in Allahabad and Lucknow and enjoyed each other's company.It is difficult to determine who is fooling whom."
In this regard, it was observed that the complainant was unable to clarify her claim regarding her caste.
In this background, the Court concluded that the trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused as the victim's claims of sexual assault and rape could not be accepted.
