Compromise In Rape Cases Involving Minors Has No Legal Value, State Has Duty To Prosecute Accused With Full Rigour: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has held that in a case of rape involving a minor girl, a compromise arrived at by the accused with the victim girl and her parents has no legal value and cannot be given effect since such compromises are often laced with coercion, undue influence or even financial incentives.“Such compromises often reflect coercion or undue influence rather than a genuine...
Rajasthan High Court has held that in a case of rape involving a minor girl, a compromise arrived at by the accused with the victim girl and her parents has no legal value and cannot be given effect since such compromises are often laced with coercion, undue influence or even financial incentives.
“Such compromises often reflect coercion or undue influence rather than a genuine settlement. Otherwise, why would guardians of a girl, who is a victim of such a heinous crime, agree to compromise with the accused.”
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was hearing a bail petition filed by an accused charged with raping an 11-year-old girl.
It was the case of the petitioner that the victim had denied any allegations of rape during her statement to the police, however, completely changed her statement in front of the magistrate. Hence, her statements could not be trusted. Furthermore, it was submitted that the victim and her parents had reached a compromise with the accused in light of which he should be granted bail.
The prayer was opposed by the public prosecutor who submitted that in light of the gravity of the offence, the compromise reached between the parties could not be enforced in such a matter.
Aligning with the arguments of the public prosecutor, the Court opined that the law recognized minors as vulnerable and lacking the capacity to make an informed decision or to understand the implications of a compromise. Hence, in cases of sexual violence against minors, the State stepped in to act in the best interests of the child and had a duty to prosecute with full rigour despite the private settlements.
“Law recognises that minors are vulnerable and lack the capacity to make fully informed decisions on their own. In cases of sexual violence against minors, the State steps into act in the best interests of the child, recognising that a minor may not fully understand the implications of a compromise and the family may be influenced by financial incentive…The state has a duty to prosecute such crimes with full rigor, regardless of any private settlement or compromise.”
The Court also stated that if such compromises were allowed to affect the legal proceedings, it would potentially encourage similar offences. It was observed that the POCSO Act aimed to prioritize the protection of vulnerable individuals and the accountability of perpetrators over any private settlements.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the bail application ruling that looking at the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused was not entitled to bail.
Title: Laxman Charan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 240