DNA India reports on a recent judgment of the Delhi High Court:
If a woman consents to have sexual relations with a married man who promises to marry her, continues the relationship and gets impregnated, then it is an act of “promiscuity” on her part instead of misconception, the Delhi High Court has said.
The court made the observation while acquitting a guitar teacher, who was awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court in October last year for raping and cheating his colleague on the false promise of marrying her.
The court is clearly saying that the woman lied and made a false and mendacious complaint, but still there is no mention of punishing her criminality:
Undoubtedly, ‘X’ and the appellant having a love affair had consensual sexual relations several times. However, (due to the) appellant’s attitude to keep a distance from her, she got enraged and lodged the instant complaint. Nothing is on record to infer that she had agreed/consented for sexual intimacy with the accused on any assurance or promise of marriage.
“There is nothing in her evidence to demonstrate that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the act which she consented to. She was enough matured to understand as to what was happening between the two. She even became pregnant and got the pregnancy terminated. Her consent for physical relation was an act of conscious reason,” the court said.
But at least the court has acquitted the unfortunate man, who has been in jail ever since the complaint was made by the woman since February, 2014.
The trial court made some disgusting white-knight statements, as if hurting the feelings of a woman is a crime worthy of being punished with a ten-year-old jail term:
The trial court had rejected his contentions saying the accused had no care or concern for the woman’s emotions and sentiments and had “ruined the life” of the complainant who was “madly in love with him”.
I want to ask the esteemed judge: Does the woman have any responsibility in this whole affair? Why are you punishing a man, who was doubtless being an adulterer – but not a criminal, but not the woman? Both are adults. Both are responsible for the situation. Why sentence the man to jail, and care so much for the woman’s feelings?
It is not the job of the judge to act as the angry father of the promiscuous woman, but to be the custodian of law. What is the difference between such a judge and a man who kills his daughter’s lover?
Steer clear of Indian women. Don’t marry them, don’t flirt with them, don’t have sex with them. Due to the legal climate, and their immaturity, it is not worth it. Even if you wisely carry a recorder, as we recently advised, be prepared for a long trial if she decides to drag you through the Indian courts.
Purushatma has acquired the text of the judgment for your edification. It is available here.
This is the money quote:
Where was the compulsion for her to establish physical relations first without ensuring that the appellant and his family members were willing to perform marriage with her? She was mature enough to fully understand as to what was happening between the two. There is nothing in her evidence to demonstrate that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the act which she consented to. Her consent for physical relations (if any) was an act of conscious reason. If a fully grown up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise to marry and continues to indulge in such activity for long, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact.
But the court can’t seem to shed a tear for him. In fact, the court is acting as the moral police by casually hinting that the man, though wrongly accused and imprisoned, has somehow been treated fairly:
The Appellant is not an innocent man inasmuch as he had willy-nilly entered into a relationship with the prosecutrix, in violation of his matrimonial vows and his paternal duties and responsibilities. If he has suffered incarceration for an offence for which he is not culpable, he should realize that retribution in another form has duly visited him.
Yeah, sure. Illegal imprisonment is just retribution for “an offence for which he is not culpable.”
We are indeed a banana republic.