Despite a love affair, the mixing of an intoxicating substance by an accused in a minor girl’s tea to rape her is serious betrayal, the Meghalaya High Court (HC) held recently, upholding the conviction and sentencing of the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh, confirmed the trial court’s decision, observing: “People used to say that love is blind. In this case, the accused has made the victim girl blind by way of intoxicating her temporarily so as to fulfil his sexual desire/lust.”
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on April 17, 2015, by the parents of the girl alleging their daughter was raped on March 14, 2015. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed on September 18, 2015, leading to trial and subsequent conviction of the accused by a Special Judge (POCSO).
The counsel for the accused argued that the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual, emphasising their exchange of messages and mutual affection. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted discrepancies in witness testimonies. He also pointed out the delay in filing the FIR, suggesting possible fabrication of evidence by the girl’s parents.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullai defended the prosecution’s case, stating the victim’s testimony, medical evidence and age verification through X-ray established the guilt of the accused. He argued that delay in filing the FIR was not unusual in cases involving minors and sexual assault, as the family needed time to come forward.
After reviewing the evidence and testimonies, the court noted the girl’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. detailed the incident, where the accused allegedly mixed an intoxicating substance in her tea, rendering her semi-conscious before committing the assault. The medical report corroborated her account, confirming the absence of her hymen and an old tear, indicating sexual activity.
The court noted: “Certainly, this Court would have considered the reduction of punishment, if it falls under the category of mere love affair and sexual intercourse with consent. But, in this case, though there was a love affair between the accused and the victim girl, owing to the victim girl’s repeated refusal to have a sexual intercourse, the accused had mixed some intoxicated element in the tea and made her asleep with part consciousness and thereafter, he had committed the offence of aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl, which is highly condemnable, amounting to betrayal of the girl.”
The court, thus, dismissed the appellant’s argument about the consensual nature of the relationship, citing the girl’s minor status and the use of an intoxicant to facilitate the assault. It also rejected the plea regarding the delay in filing the FIR, referencing the Supreme Court’s stance on the matter in ‘State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem Singh’, where delays in sexual assault cases were deemed understandable due to societal pressures.
Comments
0 comment