The offence has everything to do with the corrupt mind of the accused not seeing the prosecutrix as another living being, This crime and the punishment, has only the time tested message to every individual of the society. This was stated by the single bench heading Hon’ble Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy in the case Gopi @ Saravanan v. The State Crl.R.C.No.708 of 2014
The crux of the case is, the prosecutrix went to the Kalasapakkam Police Station and stated that when she went to graze her milch cow near her family’s land, the petitioner/accused approached her, made sweet talk, and then abruptly pulled her by her hand and dragged her to Govind Vathiyar’s teak farm, where he laid her down and committed rape by preventing her from making any noise and forcefully indulged in the act, and at that time, her brother came Her brother, in fact, picked up a stone and tossed it at him, but the same stone struck her in the left ear. Because the accused committed the crime of rape, the complaint was filed. A case was filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by a Sub-Inspector of Police. Following that, the Trial Court proceeded to construct accusations under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C., which the petitioner/accused rejected and stood trial for. The accused further rejected the charges when questioned about the evidence on file and the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court found that the charge against the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, while noting that the accused’s time spent awaiting trial can be deducted under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In this case learned Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the prosecution would submit that prosecution in this case has proved the offence beyond doubt. And further stated that In this case a careful perusal of the entire complaint and thereafter the evidence of victim, the very fact that the victim did not physically and violently resist the accused will not make the act as consensual. He also relied on the case of Rao Harnarain Singh and others Vs. State AIR 1958 P&H 123 and pointed out “Every consent involves a submission but the converse does not follow and a mere act of submission does not involve consent.” Thus, ‘submission’ would not amount to ‘consent’.
So here in the case Hon’ble Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy relied on the case of Shimbhu and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0871/2013 and stated 20 years down the lane after the commission of the crime, the case presents the grim aftermath of the crime. The prosecutrix, even though survived the offense, and lived for many years thereafter, did pass away at an young age, pending disposal of this revision. The direct and indirect impact of the crime on her body and mind cannot be ruled out. The accused being sent to jail at an early age, has since turned into an alcoholic and is very sick now at the age of 48. But the long arm of the law will reach him and land him into jail. In between he is also married and the poor wife and children have to face the social stigma, for no fault of theirs. If only, the accused did not commit the offense, their life in the village would have been peaceful. The offence has everything to do with the corrupt mind of the accused not seeing the prosecutrix as another living being, This crime and the punishment, has only the time tested message to every individual of the society.
In the result, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court stands confirmed.
Judgement reviewed by Himanshu Ranjan