Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, September 6
Engagement does not give right or liberty to the fianceacute; to sexually exploit his fianceacute;e without her consent, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
Justice Vivek Puri of the High Court also made it clear that the period between the engagement and the marriage did not give the fianceacute; any leverage to physically exploit the fianceacute;e against her consent.
Justice Puri also made it clear that passive submission on the part of the prosecutrix to the “act” could not be construed as a circumstance to hold that it was a case of consensual relationship.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by the “proposed bridegroom” for anticipatory bail in a rape case registered on July 23 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Opposing the bail plea, the State counsel contended that serious allegations of rape had been levelled against the petitioner despite the refusal on the part of the prosecutrix-victim. It was also alleged that the petitioner prepared a video while indulging in physical relationship.
Subsequent chats between the petitioner and the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix were indicative of the fact that the petitioner was not disputing the fact of entering into physical relationship and preparing the video. Furthermore, audio recordings were also presented by the complainant side to the investigating agency and the petitioner’s voice sample was required for proper investigation.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Puri asserted there was no dispute to the effect that the petitioner was engaged with the prosecutrix and marriage was fixed for December 6. The petitioner’s case was that the marriage was called off on July 2 as his family discovered that the prosecutrix was having love affair with other male friends.
Referring to the prosecution version, Justice Puri observed the petitioner on June 18 took the prosecutrix to a hotel, where physical relations were developed despite her refusal. The petitioner had earlier also been insisting on such relationship. But the prosecutrix had been refusing. It was the prosecution’s categorical case that there was refusal on part of the prosecutrix. Despite that the petitioner entered into sexual relationship.
“It is not borne out that at any point of time, the prosecutrix has voluntarily consented for the sexual intercourse and it is a case of consensual relationship. In the event, the parties were engaged and were meeting each other, it cannot give any right or liberty to the proposed bridegroom to sexually exploit the fianceacute;e without her consent,” Justice Puri asserted.
