The Delhi High Court has raised alarm over an emerging pattern where accused individuals marry their rape victims to evade criminal charges, only to abandon them once the FIR is quashed or bail is secured.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma stated,
“Shockingly, numerous cases have come to light where the accused deceitfully enters into a marriage under the guise of willingness, particularly when the victim becomes pregnant as a result of the assault and subsequent DNA testing confirms the accused as the biological father, and even after solemnization of marriage and subsequent immunity from criminal prosecution, the accused heartlessly deserts the victim within a few months.”
These observations were made during the refusal to quash an FIR lodged by Delhi Police in 2021 under Section 363/366A/376/505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The case involved a 17-year-old victim and a 20-year-old accused.
The accused’s counsel argued that it was a case of a love affair and consensual relationship, and that the parties had willingly married each other. They also argued,
“Since both the parties are Muslims, they are governed by their personal laws, and as per Muslim Law, the marriage between the parties is valid as the victim has already attained the age of 15 years.”
However, the court noted,
“It is prima facie clear that the sexual assault had taken place in 2021 and due to social pressure, which exists in many societies including India as the victim had become pregnant, the mother of victim had given in to the pressure of the accused to get her daughter married to him as he was the biological father of the child.”
Justice Sharma concluded,
“Even if the sexual relationship had taken place with the consent of the minor, which she denies completely, there is no ground made out for quashing of the FIR as the consent of a minor was of no consequence for the purpose of sexual relationship.”
She further added,
“In any case, in the present case, the minor victim specifically denies that sexual relationships were made with her consent and explains the circumstances in which she was first sexually assaulted and thereafter was repeatedly sexually assaulted under threat of making her inappropriate photographs public.”
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the allegations against the petitioner were neither absurd nor improbable, and that the alleged offense could have taken place. This case underscores the urgent need to address the manipulation of legal and social systems by perpetrators of sexual assault, and the importance of safeguarding the rights and welfare of victims, particularly minors, in such cases.