“Will you marry her?” Supreme Court asks rapist of a minor lady, grants him interim safety for 4 weeks

The Supreme Court on Monday headed by the bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde granted interim safety to a 23-year-old authorities worker of Maharashtra, accused of repeatedly committing rape on a minor lady in 2014-15. However, what comes as surprising was the collection of questions put forth by CJI Bobde, which has ignited public anger.“Will you marry her?” CJI SA Bobde requested the petitioner’s lawyer when the matter was taken up for listening to while additional suggesting, “You should have thought before seducing and raping the young girl. You knew you are a government servant.”To which Advocate Anand Dilip Langde, the lawyer of the accused replied, “I will take instructions” which means, he’ll ask his shopper and inform the courtroom. When the case was taken once more after different issues, the lawyer knowledgeable that it was not potential for the accused to marry her because the petitioner had married another person. The lawyer added that the petitioner initially wished to marry her however she refused.The bench, additionally comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, then granted him interim safety from arrest for 4 weeks, permitting him time to file for normal bail.Speaking to The Print, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora stated that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have made such an remark about marriage.She stated, “I don’t think they were warranted…I don’t think it should’ve been suggested to the victim.”“The offence is rape and will still not go away. That’s an offence in rem, it is against the State and the public. Marrying the victim of rape does not take away from the offence,” added Arora.Considering the age of the lady and the rape accused and the remark of the Supreme Court, she added, “The legislature really needs to revisit this area of consenting intercourse with a minor, who is at the borderline…The law should look at consensual acts between young people and particularly where the girl may not be 18 but capable enough to make a decision. The law does not leave any room with the judge, that’s the problem.”The sufferer was dissuaded by the accused’s mom of submitting the caseThe accused Mohit Subhash Chavan, a technician with the Maharashtra State Electric Production Company had reached the SC after his petition of anticipatory bail was quashed by the Bombay High Court, earlier granted by the periods courtroom.The case dates again to the yr 2014-15 when each the events have been minor. Being distant relations, Mohit used to go to the lady’s home steadily. However, the sufferer has alleged that when whereas her mother and father have been out of city, Chavan, clandestinely entered her home from a bottom door and dedicated rape on her.He allegedly gagged the sufferer’s mouth and tied her arms and legs. And thus ensued a collection of rapes because the accused threatened of throwing acid on the sufferer’s face, if she ever went to the police. It can also be being alleged that the sufferer was earlier dissuaded to file the case by the perpetrator’s mom after she assured the lady that her son (accused) would marry her.The accused’s mom had additionally dishonestly obtained the illiterate mom of the sufferer to signal a stamp paper which acknowledged that there was an affair between the 2 and together with her consent, they each had indulged in intercourse.Five years after the incident in 2019, an FIR was lastly lodged towards Mohit underneath Sections 376, 417, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and underneath Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act) by the lady.Lately, POSCO Act has been a flesh within the thorn for the courts of the nation because the interpretation of the legislation has been imprecise and at occasions insensitive. Recently, a 25-year-old man accused of raping and impregnating a 16-year-old lady was granted bail after he expressed willingness to marry the minor lady.However, this time round, there was no ambiguity and but the courts determined to take a moderately insensitive method in coping with the matter. The perplexing remark by the SC leaves a layman confused as to how any crime and particularly ‘rape’ might be allowed to slip by if the perpetrator agrees to marry the lady.The intricacies of the legislation are finest left to the area specialists to argue however the optics of the choice don’t look good and when the courts are battling the notion battle amongst the general public, such selections don’t make their case any stronger.