The Madras High Court stated, “There are no rules in love and war, and so say the same, and this case perhaps stands as a testimony to this statement.”

HC Bench added, “Neither prosecution nor conviction separated the prosecutrix and the appellant. At the end of the day, parties are adults, and the country's constitution does not make a moralistic statement that grants citizens their life to live if the prosecutrix and the appellant choose their way to live of their own free will.

HC Bench proceeded to acquit the rape convict after the complainant had a second child with him months after they were sent to mediation to resolve issues related to the upbringing of their first child.

Brief Facts 

The case started with a complaint from the victim, who alleged that the accused, a distant relative and neighbour, raped her on May 20, 2012, while she was living with her maternal grandmother after losing her father. The complainant registered an FIR, the victim was medically examined, and her age was determined to be between 20 and 22 years at the time of the incident.

The FIR was filed after the victim gave birth to a child. A DNA test was conducted, confirming that the accused was the father of the child. The trial court framed charges against the accused based on the evidence and investigation.

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the cross-examination of the victim disclosed that she has been having a physical relationship with the appellant multiple times, and she never raised any objection at any time. He also mentioned that the victim was an adult and she knew what she was engaging in, and she did not accuse the appellant until after she had given birth to the child.

He further urged the court to determine the best course of action for the child born to the prosecutrix through the petitioner.                                            

Observations of the High Court:

The court observed that the convict and the complainant had ended up having a second child when sent to the mediation, and the state confirmed the fact.

HC Bench noted that “There are no rules in love and war, and so say the same, and this case perhaps stands as a testimony to this statement”.

The court held “Neither prosecution nor conviction separated the prosecutrix and the appellant. At the end of the day, parties are adults, and the constitution of the country does not make a moralistic statement that grants citizens their life to live if the prosecutrix and the appellant choose their way to live of their own free will. There is no precious thing the legal system can do except recording its finding that in this instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish that there indeed was a crime."

The HC Bench observed that the case involved an abuse of the judicial process, as the complainant may have initiated the criminal proceedings with a false FIR.

Decision of Court

The High Court decided to acquit the appellant of all charges and ordered that the fine amount be refunded to him and hence the connected miscellaneous petition was disposed.             

Title: G.Selvam v. The State

Coram: Justice N. Seshasayee

Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. R. Ragavendran

Advocate for Respondent: Adv. C.E. Pratap     

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:

    

Picture Source :