Delhi High Court expresses serious concerns as a trial judge allegedly suggests a settlement in an ongoing 2020 rape case, prompting disapproval from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: On Thursday(7thMarch), the Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns over the actions of a trial court judge in an alleged rape case. The controversy centers around the judge’s alleged suggestions and assistance to both the accused and the victim to settle the matter outside of court during the ongoing trial.
The case in question dates back to 2020, involving allegations of rape against a man. The matter escalated to the Delhi High Court following the accused’s plea for quashing the FIR based on a settlement reached with the victim. However, the High Court, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, took a critical stance against the trial court’s approach.
ALSO READ: William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet | “What’s in a name?” Delhi High Court on Trademark Claims
Justice Sharma expressed deep disturbance over the trial court judge’s actions, stating-
“The Court raises apprehensions regarding the actions of the learned Trial Court Judge, as delineated in both oral arguments and the affidavit submitted with the petition, wherein it is disclosed that the Judge directly inquired with the victim about her willingness to engage in a compromise with the accused. This has prompted unease within the Court.”
The High Court was perplexed by the trial judge’s decision to suggest a settlement during the critical phase of recording prosecution evidence, especially in a grave matter such as rape.
The High Court’s observations shed light on the unsettling dynamics of the settlement. According to the court, the victim entered into the agreement only after being prompted by the trial court judge, a claim supported by the notarized settlement agreement. Justice Sharma remarked-
“Consequently, the Court expresses deep concern over the alleged behavior of the learned Trial Court Judge, provided the accuracy of such claims. If proven true, it is disquieting that the Judge reportedly suggested and facilitated a resolution between the accused and the victim in a case falling under Section 376 of the IPC, all while the Court was actively recording prosecution evidence.”
The settlement agreement, dated January 6, revealed that the accused agreed to pay Rs 3.5 lakh to the victim for the quashing of the FIR, under the premise that the incident was a result of a consensual relationship and a misunderstanding.
ALSO READ: SBI’s Dilemma | “SBI Can Never Match Electoral Bond Donors to Parties”: Ex-Finance Secretary
However, Justice Sharma criticized this arrangement, stating-
“Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for offence of rape — a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.”
The High Court underscored the gravity of rape as a violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy and an offence against societal norms. The notion of reducing a victim’s trauma to a mere financial transaction was vehemently opposed by the court. Justice Sharma’s observations pointed out the inherent contradictions in the settlement, especially if the woman’s initial allegations were based on a misunderstanding of a consensual relationship, questioning the necessity of monetary compensation.
ALSO READ: SFIO Case||Bombay HC Grants Bail to Ex-IL&FS Vice-Chairman Hari Sankaran
Further complicating the case were the victim’s allegations against the accused, including intoxication, non-consensual physical relations, and threats, all of which were supported by her testimony. These serious accusations highlight the complexities and sensitivities involved in handling cases of sexual assault within the judicial system.