On 9th Sep 2020, The Bombay High Court in the case of Amit Raoso Patil v. State of Maharashtra comprising of Smt. Bharati Dangre denied bail to an accused charged with the Sections 376, 354-D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and with the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 11, and 12 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were also invoked and just stated that the "Rape" is just not forcible intercourse, it means to inhabit and destroy everything.
Facts
The sum and substance of the allegation contained in the complaint is to the effect that the victim, who was 17 years old and pursuing her education in 11th standard in a college at Pune, was known to the applicant, as he is a family friend and a business partner of her father. The victim girl was acquainted with the applicant for about two and half years. It was alleged by the victim that from the month of October 2019, the applicant started texting her on her Whatsapp and expressed his liking towards her and also sought sexual favours from her, which was turned down by the victim girl. Since the applicant was a family friend, the girl did not disclose that she was in receipt of indecent messages from the applicant. On 6th December 2019, the applicant forwarded her a message that he intended to discuss some important family matter with her and asked her to meet on the very next day. On next day, when she was waiting for a bus to arrive, the applicant approached her on a two-wheeler and she was asked to accompany him. She was then taken to a nearby farmhouse and by making an emotional appeal and threatening that she if did not agree, he will commit suicide, she was forced to commit sexual intercourse with him. She was also threatened that she should not disclose the incident to her parents and if she does so, it would adversely affect the partnership business. The second incident is cited, when she was again forced in a similar act at his residence. The third incident is referred to be of 1st January 2020 when the victim was asked to come to the bus stop and taken to the same farmhouse and he indulged with her physically.
Applicant Submissions
The learned counsel for the applicant submits before the court that the:-
- age of the victim is 17 years and he submits that though she is not major in legal parlance, she had attained sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of her actions and she was into a relationship with the applicant on her own volition.
- The learned counsel invited Court attention to various chat messages and his submission is that the chat clearly reflects that there was a love relationship between the two. He, however, denies that he is responsible for any such sexual assault on the victim.
One thing is however clear that though the victim was an adolescent, the applicant was a mature married man aged 34 years having two children.
He did nothing and the submission advanced is, they shared a love relationship.
Court Findings & Order
The Court in its findings stated that the applicant has taken advantage of the fiduciary relationship, which he shared with the victim girl and put her in a vulnerable situation. Assuming but not accepting that the victim girl consented for maintaining the physical relationship, her consent is not a free consent. The penal code do not recognise the consent by a minor girl to be a consent in the eyes of law and in the present case, in the backdrop of narration by the victim, her consent can naturally be said to be induced by fiduciary relationship which she shared and on that count also, it is not a free consent.
The Court further stated that “the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 of the IPC, made punishable under Section 376, is attracted when a man commits an act of rape without the consent of the girl or when such consent is obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt. The hurt may be physical or mental. The consent of the victim girl under 18 years of age is also of no legal consequences when it comes to an offence of rape punishable under Section 376.”
The position of law is no more res integra on the point that the order passed in bail application will not create a binding precedent.
Lastly, the observations made in the order are prima facie in nature, based on the material placed for consideration for a limited purpose of consideration of bail application and should not be considered as an expression/opinion on the merits of the matter at the time of trial
Further, the application was rejected by the Court.
Note* Due to some technical issues order is not available on the website, it will be uploaded soon when the issue will be resolved.
Picture Source :
