Bombay High Court: In an application filed for suspension of sentence and grant of interim bail by the convict who was convicted under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(l) and 376(2)(n)1 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years vide the impugned order of the Trial Court, the Single Judge Bench of M.M. Sathaye, J., held that medical evidence proved that the convict was sexually capable and father of the victim’s child. The Court also said that since the victim was mentally challenged the aspect of consent does not arise. Holding this, the Court rejected the application.
Background
The victim, who was mentally unfit, and her mother used to work as house help in the convict’s house. On the day of the incident, when the wife of the convict was not home, the convict raped the victim who was working in the house. The convict had raped the victim twice and the victim became pregnant. The convict along with his wife and sister-in-law tried to pressurise the victim’s mother against complaining, offered money, and even tried to convince the victim and her mother to undergo an abortion. However, a complaint was lodged.
Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the convict and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. Hence, an appeal was filed against such conviction and the present application was filed therein.
Analysis
The Court stated that according to the medical evidence the convict was found capable of performing sexual intercourse and the DNA test proved that the convict was the father of the girl child born to the victim.
The Court stated that there was material to indicate prima facie, that attempts were made to hush up the incident and get rid of the pregnancy. The Court noted that although, based on the birth certificate, the victim was 23 years old at the time of the incident, she was mentally challenged, and her IQ was 42% as per the psychiatrist’s report. Therefore, prima facie, the aspect of consent was not material.
Holding this, the Court rejected the application and considering the age of the convict, 73 years old, directed the hearing of the appeal against conviction to be expedited.
[Bhalchandra Shankar Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3860, decided on 05-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Adv. Aniket Vagal
For the respondent: APP R.D. Humane and Harshad Inamdar
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023