Bombay HC Rejects Bail Application Of Rape Accused Charged With Raping Business Partner’s Minor Daughter

2 min


3
3 points
Rape is just not a forcible intercourse, it means to inhabit and destroy everything
Rape is just not a forcible intercourse, it means to inhabit and destroy everything

A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Bharati Dangre denied the bail application of a 34-year-old Pune resident. The accused Mr. Amit Patil has a case registered against him on charges of rape of a minor, and other charges under Section 376, 354-D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 3, 4, 11, and 12 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The complaint was made by the victim at the Abhiruchi Police Station, Singhad Road in Pune against the accused. The victim is the 17-year-old daughter of the accused’s business partner. The victim mentioned in her complaint that she was acquainted with the applicant for about two and a half years and from October 2019 the applicant started sending her messages on WhatsApp and expressed his liking towards her. He also sought sexual favours from her which were turned down by the victim. On the pretext of discussing some important family matters, the accused took the victim to a farmhouse and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. This happened on two more such incidents.

Representing the accused Advocate Venkatesh Shastry argued that although the girl was a minor in legal parlance, she had attained the maturity to understand the consequences of her actions and she was into this relationship with the accused on her own volition. There was reliance placed on their WhatsApp chat messages to further reiterate that there was a love relationship between the accused and the victim.

To this the court said,

The argument of the learned counsel that the victim was conscious of the intentions of the applicant, but still decided to accompany him wherever he asked her to is also a strange argument. The girl is young, at this age expected to be indecisive and could not straightly refuse when asked by the applicant, who is her father’s friend.

The court rejected the argument of the applicant’s counsel and said,

The applicant has taken advantage of the fiduciary relationship, which he shared with the victim girl and put her in a vulnerable situation. Assuming but not accepting that the victim girl consented for maintaining the physical relationship, her consent is not a free consent.

Judge Dangre importantly noted that,

Advertisements

Rape is just not a forcible intercourse, it means to inhabit and destroy everything.

Furthermore, the court observed that even if their relationship was consensual, the consent of the victim was not valid since Section 376 of the IPC does not recognise the consent of a minor.

The court rejected the bail application of the accused.

-Dhananjai Shekhawat (LC Content Writer)


lc logo

Join Legal Corner’s Telegram Group for Recent legal news, analysis on crucial topics, provision of the day, legal competitions, interviews of esteemed guests, and various other law updates.
https://t.me/joinchat/NJk2Ekhk9wOZcGJPG5nTIg

For latest legal developments and various changes around the legal fraternity, Join- Legal Updates by LC (Whatsapp Group): Invitation link-
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BrbkND5faKq5GY1czU9Nqv


Like it? Share with your friends!

3
3 points