While making a decision regarding the appeal that was made against the acquittal of an individual accused of rape, Delhi High Court remarked that women often use rape laws against men; as a tool for vengeance when a relationship didn’t turn out the way they wanted.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Pratibha Rani, in the said matter observed,
“There (are a) number of cases where both persons, out of their own will and choice, develop consensual physical relationship, when the relationship breaks due to some reason, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta.
They tend to convert such consensual acts as an incident of rape may be out of anger and frustration thereby defeating the very purpose of the provision. This requires a clear demarcation between the rape and consensual sex especially in the case where complaint is that consent was given on promise to marry.”
The petitioner, in the given case, had filed an FIR against the accused under Sections 328 and 376 of the IPC. However, in her testimony before the trial court, she stated that she had lodged the complaint due to some misunderstanding. The deposition of the prosecutrix reads,
“I know the accused since March, 2013 through Facebook. We became friends for one month and then developed love. Thereafter, we started a live in relationship. Now I got married with him on 29.11.15…
…The physical relations were made with the accused with my own consent. I do not want to pursue with the present case as I am living happily with the accused. I pray that the accused may be acquitted as he is innocent and did not commit any offence against me.”
The trial court acquitted the accused saying that the complainant had not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by the accused and also had not deposed anything incriminating against the accused.
On approaching the High Court against the acquittal, the complainant/ petitioner submitted that she had made the statement before the trial court as she was persuaded to do so by the accused.
The High Court while dismissing the appeal observed,
“It is not a case where on the date of her examination during trial by exercising some influence or pressure, she was persuaded to make a statement favouring the accused. Prior to that they had already approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR.
The petitioner in this case is a matured lady who was aged about 27 years at the time of registration of FIR. She was having friendly relations with the respondent No.2 since the year 2013 and as per the FIR she had given consent to have physical intimacy on the promise of respondent No.2 to marry her…
…In the leave petition the factum of marriage on 29th November, 2015 between the parties is admitted. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that she was misled to make a statement before the Court on 21st March, 2016 which led to the acquittal of the accused.”
Last year, while granting bail to Kanhaiya Kumar, Justice Rani had termed the protests at JNU as an “infection that needs to be controlled”.