‘Sex between husband, wife even if forcible, is not rape’

Youth accused of marrying 21-year-old after intoxicating and raping her acquitted.

Written by Shalini Narayan | New Delhi | Updated: May 13, 2014 11:08 am

RAPE-MEDIUM

A Delhi court has acquitted a youth accused of marrying a 21-year-old girl after intoxicating and raping her, saying that sexual relations between a legally wedded husband and wife, “even if forcible, is not rape”.

“It is evident that the prosecutrix (girl) had willingly and in full senses solemnised her marriage with the accused and the marriage was registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages, Ghaziabad, on March 4, 2013. The parties engaged in physical relations with each other after the marriage,” the court said.

While absolving the youth of the charge of rape, the court of Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat said, “The girl was more than 21 years old at the time. Thus, the girl and accused being legally wedded and the girl being a major, the sexual intercourse between the two, even if forcible, is not rape and no culpability can be fastened upon the youth.”

In her statement to police, the girl had claimed that she met the youth in 2013 while working at a coaching centre. She said the youth, along with his father, had given her a drink laced with sedatives, following which she fell unconscious. Thereafter, she claimed, the accused took her to the Registrar’s Office at Ghaziabad and got the marriage documents signed by her, she claimed.

Later, she alleged that the accused raped her and left her with the threat that in case she disclosed the incident to anybody, they would not spare her. The girl also claimed that the accused committed unnatural sex with her on several occasions, following which police charged the accused under sections of poisoning, rape, abduction and unnatural sex.

However, noting that the girl’s statement was “inconsistent”, the court turned down her allegations saying “there is no clinching or convincing evidence on record to show that the accused had administered any stupefying substance to the prosecutrix before taking her to the Ghaziabad court”.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

First Published on: May 13, 2014 2:01 am
  1. T
    TheAvengingAngel
    May 13, 2014 at 6:37 am
    The judge might as well have ruled that women are second cl citizens with no rights. That's more of less what he said anyway.
    Reply
    1. D
      DURJOY GHOSH,
      Jun 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm
      ACTIVISM is not LAW. Law operates in a wider sphere. And, most significantly, it is very difficult for common men to understand its basic operating principles. A crime, in order for the criminal to be punished, has to be established by adequate evidence, and therefore, nothing by law can be made an offence whose commission cannot be, under ordinary cirstances, proved by evidence.The verdict pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat is wise and welcome. DURJOY GHOSH, Calcutta
      Reply
      1. D
        DURJOY GHOSH,
        Jun 14, 2014 at 8:11 pm
        Do not blame the Law of your country without knowing the cirstances under which such judgments are pronounced. By such comments as people often post on mere reading of a report prove but insincerity and ignorance. DURJOY GHOSH
        Reply
        1. J
          Jev
          May 13, 2014 at 4:32 am
          Marital rape law is a must for women empowerment. Millions of women are getting raped by their husbands after marriage.Considering India has taken a lot of steps on rapes recently with a huge support from media and men, this kind of brutal and barbaric rapes by husbands must be put under law.
          Reply
          1. R
            Reign
            May 13, 2014 at 4:45 am
            What an utter miscarriage of decency in Mahaan Bhaarat! Can't say "miscarriage of justice" since I don't know Indian laws, but the judgment make no sense at all. If her statements were inconsistent, the case could be thrown out for being insufficiently proven. But to claim that a marriage partner has the right to forcibly have intercourse with the other partner is ridiculous.
            Reply
            1. Load More Comments