Sex on the alleged false promise of marriage: "Both grown-up adults; putting entire blame on boy would be stretching too far"

Abdul Rehman Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh HC

25/11/2020

Cr.MP(M) No. 2064 of 2020

About/from the judgment:

The High Court granted bail to a man who allegedly impersonated with a Hindu name, despite the fact that he was a Muslim, and subsequently established sexual relations with a woman "on promise to marry her and later on resiling from the same."

 

The Court granted bail to the petitioner arrested in FIR registered under Sections 376, 506, 419, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), in Woman Police Station, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

 

Case against the Petitioner

 

The allegations against the petitioner are that he revealed his name as Vicky Sharma to the Woman, who was in fact a Muslim and his real name was Abdul Rehman.

 

Allegedly, concealing his identity, the petitioner Abdul Rehman @ Vicky Sharma kept on alluring her and showed her bright future.

 

The victim stated that she fell in his trap and he promised to marry her and under such pretext, committed coitus with her on numerous occasions.

 

The alleged victim had handed over a sum of `1,20,000/- to Abdul Rehman. Apart from that the victim also handed over him a sum of `10,000/-, `5,000/- and `50,000/-.

 

On coming to know his reality (through a friend), the alleged victim was stunned. To verify the suspicion, she visited the home of Abdul Rehman at Talwara and told everything to his family members.

 

The family members of Abdul Rehman and his sisters refused to pursue her marriage with Abdul Rehman on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

 

In the meanwhile, Abdul Rehman, reached home and hurled filthy abuses on her. He dragged her inside the room and beat her mercilessly.

 

After great efforts, she rescued herself from the clutches of Abdul Rehman and he warned her that in case she dared to visit his home, he would throw acid on her.

 

Court's Order

 

The Court, in its order observed,

 

"The victim is aged 21 years. She was pursuing the course after passing 10+2. In the complaint, there is absolute silence about the petitioner involving her family and her parents to pursue the marriage proposal. Instead of the petitioner on her own visited the home of the accused."

 

The Court further noted,

 

"So far as the allegations of the victim handing over the money to purchase a car is concerned, the victim does not tell the source from which she obtained such a huge amount and it was not her case that she was a working girl. Both the boy and the girl were grown-up adults at the time when for the first time, they established coitus. They knew what they were doing. At this stage, for the purpose of bail, to put the entire blame on the boy would be stretching too far."

 

Regarding the petitioner's concealing the identity and alluring the victim, the Court said that this fact "needs to be established during the trial and further incarceration of the petitioner would cause injustice merely on these uncorroborated allegations."

 

Lastly, the Court said that an analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose.

 

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation and the period of incarceration already undergone, the Court said that it "would make out a case for bail".

 

As a bail condition, the petitioner has been directed that:-

 

  • He shall neither stare, stalk, make any gestures, remarks, call, contact, message the victim, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, nor roam around the victim's home. The petitioner shall not contact the victim.
  • The petitioner shall surrender all firearms along with ammunitions if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within 30 days from today. However, subject to the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back, in case of acquittal in this case.

 

It may be noted that while granting bail to a 21-year-old man accused of raping a 16-year-old girl, the Himachal Pradesh High Court remarked,

 

"Given the conduct of the victim of her voluntarily leaving her home under the pretext of fetching water from the water source and fact that the accused is also unmarried, the possibility of romantic love going wrong is there".

Read the Judgment

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Formats for use

Talk to our volunteer on our #Helpline

8882-498-498

Single Helpline Number For Men In Distress In India

Join our mailing list!  Stay up-to-date on upcoming projects, offers & events.

  • Follow Daaman on Facebook
  • Follow Daaman on Twitter

©2018-2020 Daaman Welfare Society & Trust.

All rights reserved.

Beware, anyone can be a victim of gender bias in society and laws! 

Don't wait: Schedule a conversation with a trusted, experienced Men's Rights Activist to find out how only awareness is the key to fight and remove prevailing gender bias against men in society.