Courts Must Also Ensure That Law Is Not Misused Against Men: Madras HC Acquits Rape Accused

The Madras High Court said that Courts, while trying rape cases, have a two-fold duty to ensure that women are not misused and that the law is not misused against men.

The Court said thus while acquitting a man accused of raping woman by giving false promise to marry.

The Bench of Justice M Dhandapani said that, "not always, it is to be stated that, it is only the male who misuse the women folk, but in the legal conundrum, vicious persons belonging to the female folk, do misuse the law to their advantage and, therefore, in cases of such nature, the duty cast on the court is two-fold, not only to see that women are not misused but equally, the law is not misused against the male folk as well... , the courts have to look at a case in this backdrop by giving a soft touch to the evidence of the prosecutrix by premising that women would not be the aggressor against male. But while looking at the evidence, it is also the duty of the court to see that an innocent male also is not subjected to the vagaries of the women folk for reasons other than what is projected before the court. Therefore, the courts are to separate the grain from the chaff while analysing the evidence placed before it so that just and proper justice is rendered to the innocent person."

From the deposition of the victim, the Court observed that, "the prosecutrix having given consent for the alleged sexual intercourse, and there being no misconception of fact as the prosecutrix knew very well before having sexual intercourse that A-1 was married, the promise of marriage, alleged to have been made by A-1 has led to the misconception cannot be accepted."

In this case, the appellant was found guilty of offenses under Sections 375 and 376, read with Sections 90 and 417 of the IPC. The charges were based on the appellant's promise to marry the victim, followed by a forceful physical relationship. When the victim's family approached the appellant's family for marriage, they were abused and threatened.

The appellant argued that even if he had sexual intercourse with the victim, it was consensual and did not constitute rape. He claimed that the victim's consent was not given under a misconception or fear, thus not meeting the criteria of Section 90 of the IPC.

The Court concluded that there was no resistance and the victim had voluntarily participated in the sexual act. In that context, it was also said that, "Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but also having fully exercised the choice between resistance and consent, all the evidence in the present case, presented by the prosecution only tends to lead to the conclusion that the consent given is not only based on intelligent exercise of knowledge, but also fully appreciating the significance and understanding the moral quality of the act. Therefore, now the prosecutrix cannot turn back and claim that the consent was only predicated upon the promise of marriage, which cannot be held to be a misconception, as already the appellant was a married man and was also the father of a child."

Cause Title: Rahul Gandhi vs State

Click here to read/download the Judgment