Convicted for rape after 22 years but set free

The Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v Hemant Ashokkumar Mittal convicted a man for rape, which he committed 22 years ago but did not impose any sentence on him since he was a juvenile at that time. The judgment was delivered by the division bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharati Dangre.

Facts:

The accused in the year 1997 had tried to woo the victim. Initially, she ignored him but later started taking his calls. Later that year in August, she eloped with the accused to Shirdi where they stayed in a lodge for two days and after that they shifted to another lodge. They even took up a job at sugarcane farm but because of the fear of the police they fled. After that they shifted to another lodge where the accused allegedly forcefully made her remove her clothes and raped her. On 31 August 1997, they went to a temple and when they returned, the girl found her mother and other relatives waiting for her. On 2 September 1997 she was examined by the doctor who said that her hymen was torn with inflammation and tenderness, which suggested sexual intercourse in the recent past.

Judgment:

The accused, Hemant Mittal was charged under Section 376, 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections deal with rape, kidnapping and procuration of a minor girl respectively. The court noted that the girl’s testimony should be interpreted keeping in view that she had run away with a boy whom she loved. When the complaint was lodged, she was very much in love with him, she would have only stated half truth in front of the police (because of the pressure of the parents and love for the boy). Later, she deposed full truth.

The court held that the intercourse between them was consensual but it would be relevant since the age of the victim was 14 years. At that time the accused was 16 years and 2 months of age. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2010 which was followed bu the Act 0f 2015 were not in force. Under these acts the age of juvenility was increased from 16 to 18 years of age.

The court held that the accused is acquitted for the offences under Section 363 and 366A of the IPC but was convicted under Section 376 since the girl was a minor at the time when they engaged in sexual activities.

Conclusion

This case is yet another example of a case dragged for so many years. It only reminds of the saying that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. Although the accused was convicted for the offence of rape since the age of the girl was 14 years at the time when the offence was committed but he was acquitted for the offence of kidnapping.

The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment of S. Varadarajan v State of Madras. The interpretation of the word ‘takes’ under Section 361 of IPC was given by the court that when there would be no enticement and the girl herself willingly runs away from her parental home with the boy, it would not attract any penal provisions. Thus, they acquitted him for offences under Sections 363 and 366A of the IPC.  They also relied on the case of Hari Ram v State of Rajasthan where it was held that the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 should be accorded to the accused, where the case was of 2009. According to Section 18(1)(g) of the Act, maximum, the accused can be directed to be sent to the Special Home for a maximum period of three years so that the accused can be reformed.

This ruling is much appreciated since many males are repeatedly roped in for the kidnapping of minor girls when the girls actually leave the house willingly. This judgment would help in protecting their rights.

-Amrashaa Singh

Student Reporter, INBA