Adding to the list of controversial judgments given by the Supreme Court of India on crimes against women, the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde today asked a government servant accused of repeatedly raping a minor girl whether he would marry the victim.
The Court was hearing an appeal of the accused against the Bombay High Court’s verdict that canceled his anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court.
The 23-year-old accused – a technician with the Maharashtra State Electric Production Company, now facing charges under the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) sought protection from arrest and told the Supreme Court that being a government employee he would automatically be suspended and lose his job if arrested.
CJI SA Bobde to this, said, “If you want to marry her, we can help you. If not, you lose your job and go to jail. You seduced the girl, raped her, you should have thought of this before.” while adding that they weren’t “forcing him to marry her”. The accused, however, said that he is now married and had earlier asked the victim to marry him, which she refused.
The lack of sensitivity of the Supreme Court’s comments has drawn huge flak by activists and journalists on social media. The intent to marry even being relevant to the Highest Court of India in a crime as severe as rape not only undermines the victim’s trauma but also puts a question mark on the country’s justice system for women.
The grisly details of the incident remain that the accused – a distant relative of the 16-year-old used to stalk the girl and raped her throughout that period, threatening her with dire consequences including attacking her with acid, if the incident was disclosed.
The victim had reportedly also attempted to commit suicide but was stopped by her mother after which they went to the police station to lodge a complaint against the appellant. However, the mother of the accused stopped them, promising that she would get her son married to the victim once she turned eighteen.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora said that if the case was at the stage of bail, then the judge should not have made such observations about marriage. “The offence is rape and will still not go away. That’s an offence against the State and the public. Marrying the victim of rape does not take away from the offence”, she added.
