The Allahabad High Court upheld the rape conviction of a 70-year-old man, stressing how poverty and caste delay justice. The FIR delay was blamed on police inaction and the victim’s social disadvantage.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court said that poor and marginalised people often face many problems in getting justice, especially in rape cases. The court gave this decision while hearing the case of a 70-year-old man who was convicted for rape and house trespass.
The man had filed an appeal against the trial court’s order, but the High Court confirmed his conviction.
The court accepted that the 13-day delay in filing the FIR (police complaint) was not because the woman or her husband were lying, but because of repeated negligence by the police and because the victim belonged to a weaker section of society.
According to the case, in October 1996, a man named Bhagwandeen entered the house of a Scheduled Caste woman at night and raped her while she was alone with her two small children. Her husband, who worked as a daily-wage labourer loading sand onto trucks, came home in the morning and got to know about the crime.
During the trial, Bhagwandeen got bail and even after being convicted, he again got bail in 2011. So even though he was sentenced to life under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC, he was in jail for only about six months in total.
The High Court observed that the woman and her husband had immediately gone to the police station on 27th October 1996, but the police did not file any case. Then, the husband, who was called ‘R’ in the court’s judgment, took help from a lawyer and submitted a written complaint to a senior police officer (Circle Officer). Finally, the FIR was lodged on 9th November.
The court clearly said:
“It is a hard reality of life that at times social and economic status govern the fate of citizens in such matters. Disadvantaged persons such as ‘R’ and ‘S’ may be made to wait and may thus have been forced to make many efforts to get their FIR lodged.”
The lawyer of the accused man tried to argue that there was delay in reporting, no medical evidence, and no independent witnesses. But the court trusted the victim’s statement, saying that she remained strong and clear even during cross-examination.
The judges also gave a very humane explanation for why the woman washed her clothes instead of keeping them for medical evidence.
The court said:
“Clothing though a basic necessity of life, is very precious and it comes at a heavy price to the poor. Therefore, it is wholly natural and in that regard natural to expect that ‘S’ would have washed her clothes that she may have worn, at the time of the occurrence.”
About the lack of any independent witness, the court said that this is common in rape cases and cannot be a reason to doubt the victim.
The court said:
“Suffice it to note, at present, civilization values may not have refined enough and may not be strong enough for courts to necessarily expect that independent witnesses would not fall prey to societal pressures and practices when approached by offenders,”
and added-
“Generally, people tend to walk away from the victim if not for any threat, only for the sake of personal convenience and comfort, or not finding time for courts, as a witness.”
The court decided to cancel the conviction under the SC/ST Act, as there was no clear proof that the crime happened because of the victim’s caste. But the court confirmed the convictions under Sections 376 (rape) and 452 (house trespass) of the Indian Penal Code.
Finally, considering that the convict is now quite old, the court decided to reduce his punishment from 10 years of hard labour to 7 years of simple imprisonment.
CASE TITLE:
Bhagwandeen vs State of UP
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Allahabad High Court
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rape
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
