 against his submission that there was consent. The Court has asked the age of the prosecutrix. To which he replied 16-years-old. The Court said, “then there is no consent.”){kind=link}
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea by a man convicted of raping a minor girl and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The Apex Court has noted that the Trial Court judge had written the name of the prosecutrix in his order sheet. The Top Court took strong objection to it.
A three-judge bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan noted in its order, “The writ petition is dismissed but we took exception that the session judge has mentioned the name of the victim. It is well settled that name of victims should not be mentioned in these type of cases. We direct that the Session Judge should be careful in future not to take name of victims in such case.”
The Top Court rapped the counsel appearing for the petitioner against his submission that there was consent. The Court asked for the age of the prosecutrix. To which, he replied 16-years-old. The Court said, “Then there is no consent.”
The Court was hearing the plea filed by a man who was convicted by a Trial Court under Section 376 & 342 Indian Penal Code, which was later affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Chhattisgarh HC Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma had noted in his order: “Looking to the entire evidence, it cannot be said that it is consensual intercourse. There is nothing on record that the appellant has been roped with a false charge. The statement of the prosecutrix is quite natural, inspires confidence, and merits acceptance.”
Also Read: No rational thinking provided, emergent situation met: Sikkim HC on Covid-19 crisis
Further, it stated, “In the traditional non-permissive bounds of the society of India, no girl or woman of self-respect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardizing her future prospect. When her evidence is inspiring confidence, no corroboration is necessary. The act of appellant Birbal falls within the mischief of Section 376(1) and 342 of IPC for which the trial court has convicted the appellant and same is hereby affirmed.”
“The trial court awarded RI for 10 years for the offence of rape under Section 376 (1) of IPC which cannot be termed as harsh or unreasonable or disproportionate. Sentence part is also not liable to be interfered with,” said the High Court, while canceling his bail bonds and directing the trial court to prepare a super-session warrant and issue a non-bailable warrant against the said appellant and after his arrest, he is sent to jail for serving out the remainder of the sentence.