Chief Justice said his comments made during the bail hearing in a rape case were ‘Completely Misreported’

Chief justice of India Sharad A.Bobde in a case said the supreme court, as an institution, had the highest respect for womanhood, recent media report quoting him as asking an alleged rapist to marry the victim was completely misquoted the CJI made the position clear on international women’s day. 

As per the issue raised in media reports, on 1st March 2021, the Supreme Court asked a 23-year-old man accused of raping a minor girl when she was about 16 years old if he would marry her. A Special Leave Petition filed by the accused, a government employee in Maharashtra, against an order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) that cancelled his anticipatory bail, was being heard by a bench that the Chief Justice of India was leading.

The victim filed an FIR against the petitioner in 2019 under Indian Penal Code Sections 376, 417, and 506, as well as Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

It was also said that when the victim in the matter attempted to file a police report with the assistance of a social worker, the Accused’s mother discouraged her from doing so, claiming that she cannot welcome her as a daughter-in-law; this further implied that the Accused had promised to marry the Victim and hence she remained silent. She also said that the petitioner once made her illiterate mother sign a piece of stamp paper alleging that the two had an affair and that they had both engaged in sex with her consent. The convict, on the other hand, broke his vow and married someone else. The victim then approached the Bombay High Court to nullify the order after the Sessions Court granted the Accused anticipatory bail. In the order cancelling his anticipatory bail, the Bombay High Court observed that the Accused had sexually exploited the girl for a sufficiently long period.

“One can easily conclude that going by the allegations respondent No.2 (the Accused) has sexually exploited the applicant for a sufficiently long period since she was around 16 years of age. The papers of investigation would further corroborate the applicant’s version about the execution of writing on a stamp paper of Rs.500/-. Respondent No.2 and his family seem to be so influential that they could get executed this writing from the applicant and her widowed mother. The very fact that they could get such writing executed is indicative and is sufficient to infer that respondent No.2 had indulged in sex with the applicant even when she was merely 16 years of age. Pertinently, this writing also bears his signature and signature of his mother”.

In this matter, the High Court also went so far as to call the Sessions Court’s decision to issue bail “atrocious”. Even though the girl was a minor, the Sessions Court found her to be of “sufficient maturity” since she “has stated with meticulous details regarding the use of contraceptive” by the Accused.” The High Court’s Justice Mangesh S Patil took serious exception to the Sessions Court’s “lack of consideration,” observing:

“The approach of the learned Judge from such reasoning clearly shows his utter lack of sensitivity in such serious matters. In spite of having noted that the applicant was still a minor when respondent No.2 had sexually exploited her and in spite of observing that her consent would be immaterial, he has concluded that it was a consensual relationship. Astonishingly, merely because she has mentioned in the FIR about use of contraceptive by respondent No.2, the learned Judge has jumped to the conclusion that she was having sufficient maturity. The height is committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge even to record an observation that there is a possibility of false implication of respondent No.2. Such an approach is a clear indication that the learned Judge utterly lacks competence. It is indeed a matter which deserves a serious consideration”

The FIR against Mohit was lodged in 2019 under section 376,417,506 of the Indian penal code and under section 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) by the girl

SECTION 376  of the IPC- Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject a person to griev­ous hurt, slavery, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or maybe so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subject to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

SECTION 417 of the IPC – Punishment for cheating.—whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

SECTION 506 of the IPC- Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastely to a woman, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

POCSO ACT SECTION 4- Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.

1. Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ²[ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
2. Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine.
3. The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.

POCSO ACT SECTION 12-   Punishment for sexual harassment.

Whoever commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

PROTECTION FROM ARREST GRANTED

After that, the bench dismissed the petition giving him liberty to seek regular bail. The bench also comprising justice AS BOPANNA and V RAMASUBRAMANION, also granted the petitioner protection from arrest for four weeks. Last week, a bench headed by Bobde was hearing a bail plea of 23-year-old Accused, who is a technician with the Maharashtra State Electric Production Company. The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court had cancelled his anticipatory bail.

The bench listed the matter for further hearing on April 24, 2021.