Will you marry her? Supreme Court asks government servant charged with repeatedly raping minor girl

The Supreme Court witnessed a rather bizarre exchange today as Chief Justice of India SA Bobde asked a government servant accused of repeatedly raping a minor girl whether he would marry the victim ( Mohit Subhash Chavan v. State of Maharashtra ).

. The Court was hearing an appeal against a verdict of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court by which an order of the Sessions Court granting the appellant anticipatory bail was set aside.

. When the matter was taken up today, CJI Bobde asked counsel for the petitioner,

"Will you marry her?"

To this, the advocate replied,

"I will take instructions."

"You should have thought before seducing and raping the young girl. You knew you are a government servant," was CJI Bobde's response.

. "We are not forcing you to marry. Let us know if you will. Otherwise you will say we are forcing you to marry her," the CJI went on to observe. . When the matter was heard again shortly thereafter, counsel for the petitioner said,

"I wanted to marry her. But she refused. Now I cannot, as I am already married. Trial is going on, charges are yet to be framed."

. The Court went on to stay the arrest of the petitioner, granting him interim protection for four weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was asked to apply for regular bail.

. The grisly facts of the case are that the petitioner used to follow the 16-year-old girl, a distant relative of his, on her way to school. One day, when the family members of the girl were out of town, he entered the house through the backdoor. He gagged the victim's mouth, tied her hands and legs, and committed rape upon her.

. The petitioner then threatened the victim that he would throw acid on her face if she disclosed the incident to anyone. He also threatened her with harm to her family members. Using these threats, he repeatedly raped the victim, who was in ninth standard, around 10-12 times.

. One day, the victim attempted to commit suicide, but was stopped by her mother. The victim and her mother then went to the police station to lodge a complaint against the appellant. However, the petitioner's mother stopped them from doing, promising that she would get her son married to the victim once she turns 18.

It was further alleged the petitioner's mother made the victim's illiterate mother sign an undertaking on stamp paper that there was an affair between their children and that the sexual relations were consensual.

. However, when the victim attained majority, the petitioner's mother refused to facilitate the marriage between the two. This prompted the victim to file a complaint against the petitioner.

On the basis of this complaint, an FIR was registered for charges under Section 376 (punishment for rape), 417 (punishment for cheating), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012

. The petitioner then approached the Sessions Court, Jalgaon for anticipatory bail. The same was granted on January 6, 2020.

. The victim then challenged this order before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. Before the Bench of Justice Mangesh Patil, counsel for the victim contended that anticipatory bail should not have been granted in a case in which the offences are serious and falling under the POCSO Act.

. The High Court agreed with this stance, taking a dim view of the "atrocious" order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The judgment records,

"If such is the state-of-affair, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is indeed atrocious...

...The approach of the learned Judge from such a reasoning clearly shows his utter lack of sensitivity in such serious matters. Inspite of having noted that the applicant was still a minor when respondent No.2 had sexually exploited her and inspite of observing that her consent would be immaterial, he has concluded that it was a consensual relation."

. The High Court went on to note,

"The reasoning resorted to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly undermines the legal principles and parameters, which should weigh with the Court in entertaining the application for anticipatory bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments."

. It thus set aside the Sessions Court order, terming it as perverse, arbitrary and capricious.

. Challenging this ruling before the Supreme Court, the petitioner has claimed that there was no reason to set aside the order granting him anticipatory bail, that too after a period of one year. He further stated that he has not violated any of the terms of bail imposed by the Sessions Court.

. The delay of more than two years in filing the complaint was also called into question.

"...informant alleged in the FIR that the said incident was happened since 2014-2015 when the informant was in 9th std and that continued upto 12th std but the informant had not lodged any complaint with the police station or not made the same before any family member but suddenly after refusing marriage with the Petitioner intentionally lodged the same belatedly," the plea states.

. [Read Supreme Court Order]

Will you marry her? Supreme Court asks government servant charged with repeatedly raping minor girl

Aditya AK

Debayan Roy

Related Stories