On 19 February 2021, a victim had left her home at 8 am to attend her tailoring lessons in Kaushambi. She spoke with Raju over the phone and planned to meet him. After her class got over, she met with Raju at around 11 am and went on his motorcycle. The victim and the accused were in love and known to each other for quite some time. When the two reached a culvert of a local river in a secluded place, the accused expressed his desire to have sex with the victim. Despite her stiff resistance, the accused forced him upon her.
Meanwhile, three men reached the spot, abused and beat up Raju, snatched his mobile and allegedly raped the victim. The two took each other’s names while committing the alleged crime, enabling the victim to identify them. Taking note of the material placed on record and contents of the FIR, the court termed Raju’s behaviour as unacceptable and “unbecoming of a boyfriend.”
The court said, “The moment the applicant submits that the victim is his beloved, it was his binding duty to protect the dignity, honour and reputation of his girlfriend. If a girl is a major one then to have sex with her consent is not an offence, but certainly, it is unethical and immoral and also not in consonance with the established social norms of the Indian society,” the judge noted in his order.
The court observed that Raju remained a silent spectator when the co-accused was brutally assaulting “his beloved in front of him.” He made no effort to put up stiff resistance to save the “soul and body” of the victim from “further butchering by the flesh vultures.” The only duty he performed as a “chivalrous boyfriend” was that he accompanied the victim to the police station to lodge the FIR, the court remarked.
Before the court, the accused argued the FIR was registered belatedly, as it was lodged only a day after the alleged incident. The time taken gave ample time to the victim to cook up an imaginary story to falsely implicate the accused. The accused also took the court through the victim’s statements under sections 161 (given to the police) and 164 (recorded before the magistrate) of CrPC, admitting Raju was her boyfriend and the two had consensual sex.
On Raju’s plea of not knowing the co-accused, the judge said it cannot be said with certainty that the application had no association or connection with them. In this case, if the co-accused were not known to Raju and they confiscated his mobile, they all assaulted and hit him too, how one can expect he can save the girl to resist, even though he might have resisted but he alone against three men hardly has any scope of escape.
Well, he took the girl to the police station, helped her register a complaint, he was with her all the time that was his concern for her. Raju forcing sex on the girl in an isolated place was uncalled for. If you remember in the Nirbhaya case, the act of a boyfriend of Nirbhaya incited the event. They both were somewhat in intimate moments with each other and that invited trouble for the girl.
Sex is common in India in privacy. It is still taboo for Indian society but with the advent of new dating apps, truly madly etc, people starving for sex are getting companions more easily. There are no restrictions for 18+ boys and girls to book Oyo hotels in India. So, sex has become a common thing nowadays.
In this case, the girl met her boyfriend with mutual agreement, night time she chose to go with him to a remote place, and this has given a chance to her so-called boyfriend to demand sex. Thereafter whatever happens is a brutal tragedy. The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to a man for allegedly sexually assaulting his girlfriend and standing as a mute spectator while she was being allegedly raped by two more men. In its order dated 21 October, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi rejected the accused Raju’s defence that the victim is his girlfriend and both had consensual sex. The judge remarked having consensual sex with a girl who is a major is not an offence under the law, but is “unethical, immoral and against established Indian norms.
However, at the same time, the judge chided Raju for failing in his duty to protect his girlfriend when she was being allegedly sexually harassed by the co-accused. The court even refused to accept Raju’s contention that he was not associated with the two other accused, saying it was too early to conclude the same.
Raju was charged under Sections 376-D (taking advantage of his position to rape the victim), 392 (punishment for robbery), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (whoever intentionally insults and gives provocation to any person to commit an offence) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and under POCSO Act.
Any suggestions, comments or disputes with regards to this article send us at firstname.lastname@example.org