Marriage After Sexual Abuse Of Minor Doesn’t Mitigate Act: Delhi HC
Jul 23, 2022 | Pratirodh Bureau
Justice Divyesh Joshi observed that the actual incidences of violence against women in India are probably much higher than the data suggests and that women may continue to face hostility and remain in environments where they are subject to violence
The Delhi High Court, dealing with a POCSO Act case bail plea, on Friday observed that merely because such sexual abuse results in the tying of the knot between the victim and the accused, in violation of provisions of law or results in the birth of a child, this does not mitigate the act in any manner.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was hearing the bail plea of a 27-year-old man who was charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for sexually exploiting a minor girl but later marrying her.
As per the case, the minor girl’s mother had complained that some unknown person had kidnapped her 15-year-old daughter, who was reportedly missing since July 9, 2019. Subsequently, a habeas corpus application was filed and the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch. The accused man, during the course of investigation, misled the investigating agency by suppressing the whereabouts of the victim, as per the FIR.
Finally, on the basis of mobile technical surveillance, the victim was eventually recovered on October 5, 2021, along with her 8-month-old female child from the house of the accused; she was also about one and half months pregnant by that time.
As per the order, the petitioner lured the victim and allegedly married her in a Delhi temple.
The counsel for the accused submitted that he has been in custody since October 6, 2021 and the relationship between the parties was voluntary. He also argued that the petitioner is required to look after the victim and her children.
In the order, the court noted that a girl child faces several adverse challenges if she is married below 18 years of age, noting that the victim was studying in Class 9 and was 14 years and six months old at the time of abduction.
“…Also, Section 375 defines ‘rape’ and it provides that a man is said to commit ‘rape’ if he has sexual intercourse with a woman under the circumstances falling under any of the seven descriptions mentioned in the Section. Clause six of Section 375 makes it clear that if the woman is under the age of 18 years, then sexual intercourse with her, with or without consent is ‘rape’..” the court held.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.