ALLAHABAD: While setting the conviction of a man aside in a case of abduction for marriage and rape of his live-in partner, the Allahabad court expressed that men faced FIRs and get convicted after live-in relations fail, as the laws favour women since they were framed when the live-in relationship concept did not exist.
The court was hearing a criminal appeal against the Special Judge, Exclusive Court (Pocso Act), Maharajganj district court, order passed on March 6, 2024, against the appellant, who faced trial in a case lodged in August 2021.
The court in the judgment stated, “In view of the consideration of the evidence and arguments, the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Maharajganj trial court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail; he is directed to be set free if not wanted in any other case.”
The case against the appellant was filed under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 323 (assault), 363 and 366 (abducting while enticing away woman with intention to marry), 376 (punishment for rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative assault on minor) and Section-3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Maharajganj court convicted and sentenced the appellant under all sections, including awarding seven years imprisonment, besides fines under IPC sections 363 and 366, one year under section 323, 20 years under POCSO Act and life imprisonment under SC/ST Act.
However, hearing the appeal of the convict, the High Court division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra, said: “We find that this case is an example of increasing tendency of the youth living together without solemnisation of marriage under the influence of western ideas and the concept of live-in. After such relationships fail, FIR is lodged and the laws being in favour of women, the boys/men get convicted relying upon the laws which were made when the concept of live-in was nowhere in existence.”
According to the prosecution’s case, a youth, belonging to an OBC community, allegedly enticed away a Dalit girl from his village in February 2021.
The girl returned to her parents’ home in August in the same year.
Her mother alleged that her daughter informed that the youth took her away, promising marriage, but did not fulfil the commitment and turned her out of his house.
She could not approach the police earlier because of shame. While complaining, her DoB as per the Aadhar Card was January 1, 2003.
The man, during examination before the local court, claimed the allegations against him were wrong and that the girl’s mother is a habitual litigant and extracts money by lodging false cases against different persons.
The case against him was lodged with the intention to get compensation of Rs. 8,25,000 from the Social Welfare Department, claimed the appellant.
The division bench stated in the order that the trial court had not considered the age certificate of the prosecution witness (PW 2) (the victim), issued by CMO Maharajganj, which proved her age to be about 20 years on August 19, 2021.
“She eloped from her house willingly on February 22, 2021, as per the statement of PW-1 (mother) and also the prosecution case as per the FIR. But, apparently, later on, the legal advice she mentioned the girl’s age as 17 years in her statement before the Court. The girl was major and left her home to be with the appellant, and from there she went through Public Transport to Gorakhpur and then to Bengaluru," said the Bench.
“She cannot be said to have been forcibly abducted for forcible marriage with the appellant. She lived with the appellant in a locality full of other houses for six months before returning to her place of residence with the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366 IPC is absolutely unwarranted as per the Law,” the Bench added.
“In case the victim was major the conviction of the appellant under Section-6 of the POCSO Act is also unjustified. The conviction under section-376 of the IPC is also not proper because the victim was a major and had a consenting relationship with the appellant for six years,” the order stated.
The Bench stated, “The overall conduct of the girl leaving her house on her own and living with the appellant for 6 months, having physical relationship with him, never making any call to her mother or anyone in her family during this period and making call to her mother only after the appellant left her at Shikarpur Crossing on August 6, 2021 proves that girl (P.W.-2) entered into physical relationship with the appellant, became pregnant. Thereafter, for reasons best known to them, the appellant and P.W.-2 returned from Bengaluru, and both parted their ways.”
“The punishment under Section-3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act is not independent provision and is applicable only where the accused is punished with imprisonment of 10 years or more under the provision of IPC, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section-3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act is also not sustainable and is hereby set aside,” the court ordered.
The court also noted, “conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC is also unwarranted since the role of pushing P.W.2 has not been assigned to appellant but to his family members.”
