Aug 14, 2021 11:52 UTC
Aug 14, 2021 at 11:52 UTC
NEWS: MP HC says Unmarried Girls in India Don’t Indulge in Carnal Activities for Fun
The Madhya Pradesh High Court while rejecting a bail plea has remarked that India is a conservative society where unmarried girls don’t indulge in carnal activities for fun without assurance of marriage.
“India are a conservative society, it has not yet reached such level (advance or lower) of civilization where unmarried girls, regardless of their religion, indulge in carnal activities with boys just for the fun of it, unless the same is backed by some future promise/assurance of marriage and to prove her point, it is not necessary every time for a victim to try to commit suicide as in the present case.“
Abhishek Chouhan v. State of MP
The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar opined that a boy who is entering into a physical relationship with a ‘lass’ must realize that his actions will have consequences and must be ready to face the same.
“This Court is also of the considered opinion that a boy who is entering into a physical relationship with a lass must realize that his actions have consequences and should be ready to face the same as it is the girl who is always at the receiving end because it is she who runs the risk of being pregnant and also her ignominy in the society, if her relationship is disclosed. You just cannot plead consent on the part of the prosecutrix and laugh all the way to your home,” the court said
The court was hearing a case wherein it was alleged that the accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. Therefore the accused has been implicated with the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 366 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4,5-I, 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual (POSCO) Act.
The Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix had an affair for two years, and that the prosecutrix entered into a physical relationship with the applicant on her own will and that she is not a minor and aged around 21 years.
Further, it was argued that the parents of the prosecutrix and the applicant opposed their marriage as they are from different religions – the applicant is a Hindu whereas the prosecutrix is a Muslim.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the State argued that he repeatedly committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage since October 2018 and subsequently refused to marry her.
Thereafter it was disclosed to the victim that the applicant was getting married to someone else. Following this, the prosecutrix attempted to commit suicide by consuming phenyl but fortunately survived.
Further, the court said that it has observed in a majority of the cases of rape that the defence side pleads that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that in most of the cases, the accused gets the benefit of the doubt also.
The court took note of the fact that the prosecutrix had tried to commit suicide, which apparently shows that she was serious about the relationship and that it cannot be said that she entered into the relationship only for enjoyment.
Hence the Court rejected the bail plea of the applicant.
“On due consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail as apparently the applicant has allured the prosecutrix to enter into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage despite knowing fully well that both of them are from different religion.” said the court.
Click HERE to Read Order