"No Compromise Against Honour Of Woman": AP High Court Refuses To Set Aside Rape Conviction On The Basis Of Compromise

The Andhra Pradesh High Court last week refused to set aside an order of conviction in a rape case as it noted that rape is an offence against society and it is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle.

The Court also opined that the concept of compromise, under no circumstances, can be thought of as there cannot be a compromise or settlement against the honor and dignity of a woman.

The Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that on the basis of the compromise/settlement between the convict and the victim, the order of conviction can't be set aside nor the convicts can be acquitted of the offenses for which there is conviction, by allowing the appeal on the ground of a settlement.

The case in brief

One Kankipati Kalyan Babu (Accused number 1) was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (Rape), 342, 417 and 420 IPC by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada for raping the victim. In the same matter, Accused number 2 (Kankipati Vijayakumari) was also convicted u/s 109 r/w Sections 376 and 342 read with 34 IPC.

Thereafter, the victim filed an IA seeking High Court's permission to compromise the matter with both the accused stating that she fell in love with accused number 1 and they decided to marry, but due to some reasons it was not materialized.

It was stated in her IA that due to some misunderstandings, she gave a report to the police which resulted in the conviction of the petitioners/accused and while the matter stood thus, the wellwishers, elders from both sides including community people convened a meeting and reprimanded both to put an end to the unnecessary ill feelings in the minds of both parties in order to lead a peaceful life in the locality.

Against this backdrop, she had approached the court to set aside their conviction. The counsels for both the accused-appellants and victim, argued that the appeal can be decided by setting aside the conviction and sentence order and the convicts can be acquitted in view of the compromise.

It was also argued that the victim and convict were close friends; had studied together and while pursuing B.Ed., they fell in love and decided to marry but it could not be materialized and due to that reason and misunderstanding, the case was filed.

Lastly, it was submitted that the offence under Section 376 IPC is purely personal in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the conviction could be set aside on the ground of compromise.

Court's order 

At the outset, referring to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madan Lal [(2015) 7 SCC 681], wherein the Supreme Court had held that rape or attempt to rape are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple, the Court observed thus:

"These are the offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. Reputation is the richest jewel one can conecive of in life. No one can allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "Purest Treasure" is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her nonperishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most."

Further, the Court concluded that since in the present case the appellants have been convicted of a heinous offence u/s.376 IPC by the trial Court, therefore any question of sparing them on mere compromise does not arise.

"The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that it was a case of love affair and there was promise to marry and therefore it is not a case of rape cannot be accepted at this stage of considering the point in issue to set aside the conviction on mere settlement between the parties, in view of the clear finding of guilt and conviction for the offences u/s 376 IPC recorded by the learned trial Court. Such a plea would require consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances to arrive at a conclusion if there was promise to marry at all, if such promise was false since its inception or it was a true promise but due to certain reasons could not be fulfilled or physical relationship was on such promise and it was voluntary or under some misconception of fact, so as to constitute or not an offence of rape. This can be done, if occasion arises, only while deciding the appeal on merits," noted the Court as it refused to set aside the conviction based on the compromise deed and rejected the IA filed in the appeal.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment