Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a man for raping his minor wife, reiterating that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age constitutes rape, regardless of marital status or consent. The judgment, delivered by Justice Govind Sanap, dismissed the accused’s defense of consensual intercourse within marriage, affirming the legal principle that non-consensual intercourse with a wife below the age of 18 is rape.

The case revolved around a minor girl who became pregnant following her relationship with the accused, who deceived her with a sham marriage. The trial court had convicted the accused under rape and provisions of the POCSO Act. Justice Sanap upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the primacy of consent and the legal age threshold in matters of sexual intercourse.

Arguments by the Appellant:

• Marriage Defense:

The accused argued that the victim was his wife, as evidenced by photos of their garland exchange and her admission before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).

The defense claimed that the victim consented to the sexual relationship, which occurred within the framework of their marriage.

• Questioning the Victim’s Statements:

The appellant pointed out inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, arguing that her allegations of forcible intercourse were fabricated.

It was contended that the victim willingly participated in the relationship and later lodged a complaint out of spite.

• Challenging the Conviction:

The defense argued that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant without adequately considering the consensual nature of the relationship.

Arguments by the Prosecution and Victim:

• Age of the Victim:

The prosecution presented concrete evidence, including medical records, the victim’s birth certificate, and DNA reports, proving that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incidents.

It was argued that the accused’s defense of marriage was irrelevant, as sexual intercourse with a minor, irrespective of consent, amounts to statutory rape.

• Deception and Exploitation:

The prosecution highlighted how the accused exploited the victim by feigning a marriage to maintain sexual relations, only to later disown her and the child.

Evidence of physical assault and coercion during the pregnancy further demonstrated the accused’s malicious intent.

• Legal Precedent:

The prosecution cited the Supreme Court’s ruling that sexual intercourse with a minor, even within a marital setup, constitutes rape.

It emphasized the protective provisions of the POCSO Act, designed to safeguard minors from sexual exploitation.

• Victim’s Testimony:

The victim’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.

The victim’s refusal to abort the pregnancy and subsequent reporting of the accused’s abusive behavior illustrated her credibility and the gravity of the crime.

Court’s Judgment:

• Age Threshold Under Law:

Justice Sanap unequivocally held that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age constitutes rape, irrespective of marital status or consent.

The Court relied on the victim’s birth certificate and medical evidence to confirm her minority status.

• Marriage Defense Rejected:

The Court dismissed the accused’s argument that the sexual relationship was consensual and protected by their alleged marriage.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, Justice Sanap reiterated that marital status does not shield an accused from prosecution for rape if the victim is a minor.

• Sham Marriage and Deception:

The Court noted the accused’s fraudulent conduct in feigning a marriage to exploit the victim sexually.

The evidence, including the victim’s pregnancy and DNA reports, supported the prosecution’s claim of deceit and exploitation.

• No Reason to Doubt Trial Court Findings:

Justice Sanap affirmed the trial court’s reasoning and reliance on cogent evidence, including the victim’s testimony, medical reports, and corroborative witnesses.

The Court found no merit in the appellant’s plea for acquittal, deeming the trial court’s conviction legally and factually sound.

• Dismissal of the Appeal:

In light of the above findings, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant’s conviction under charges of rape and provisions of the POCSO Act. Justice Sanap concluded that the accused’s actions amounted to rape, irrespective of the alleged marital relationship.