35-Yr-Old Widow Must Know Repercussions Of Premarital Sex: Allahabad HC Grants Bail In Alleged Case Of Sex On Marriage False Promise
Noting that the alleged rape victim, a 35-year-old widow lady must understand the far-reaching repercussions of having premarital sex with an unknown person, the Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of establishing a physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marriage. The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also underscored that the victim had...
Noting that the alleged rape victim, a 35-year-old widow lady must understand the far-reaching repercussions of having premarital sex with an unknown person, the Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of establishing a physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marriage.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also underscored that the victim had declined herself from any medical examination so as to ascertain the allegations of rape upon her.
Matter in brief
As per the FIR, after the demise of the husband of the victim/widow in 2016, she developed a certain amount of intimacy with the appellant/accused and fell in love with him.
Allegedly, the appellant, on the false pretext of marrying her, established a physical relationship with her, which lasted up to two years without any resistance or objection from her.
However, since the appellant wriggled out from his promise to marry her, and started abusing and humiliating her, and also extended threats for her life, she lodged the FIR against him alleging the offence of rape.
In pursuance of the FIR registered against him, the accused/appellant was booked under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act.
Since the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar had rejected his bail plea, the accused/appellant moved the High Court challenging the order of the lower court.
Arguments put forth
The Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had admitted and reiterated the version of the F.I.R., but she had declined to admit herself for medical examination, so as to establish the fact of rape upon her as alleged in the F.I.R.
He also submitted that the appellant had been languishing in jail since 06.12.2020.
On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party no.2/widow, argued that exploiting the condition of a destitute widow lady, a false promise was extended by the appellant and after winning over her confidence, he had mercilessly ravished her for two good years and thereafter ousted her from his life.
Court's order
After hearing rival submissions of both the parties, the Court was of the opinion that being a widow, who is a 35-year-old woman, she must understand the far-reaching repercussions of premarital sex with an unknown person.
"Besides this, the victim has declined herself from any medical examination so as to ascertain the factum of rape upon her," the Court further added.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court, in the end, found it to be a fit case for grant of bail and granted bail to the appellant.
Case title - Durgesh Tripathi @ Ram v. State of U.P. and Another
Read Order