State v. Vikash Kumar: Case Analysis
Bail Application No. 1154/2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted in 1860 and it was the first time when the term ‘rape’ was used in India. Section 375 to Section 376E of IPC refers to ‘sexual offenses’ it defines ‘rape’ as an act of sexual and physical abuse without consent, or if done with consent by putting the victim in fear of death. It also defined ‘statutory rape’ as sex with a woman under the age of 16.
An ugly reality check
It is indeed an ugly truth, that men have been becoming prey to false rape cases. Many women trap petty men by misusing the very serious charge of rape. They do so for various reasons such as to get revenge, to satisfy their ego or to harm another person. It is an admitted fact that the outcome of false accusation is devastating for men and their families, even if the person wrongfully accused is ultimately acquitted but the journey he undergoes is miserable.
What are the consequences of a false rape charge?
It is a very touchy topic and hence many victims avoid to share their experiences on this. We have negligible awareness regarding men’s rights or their sufferings in India. There have been instances where prosecutor’s side have been supported the false-accuser even after the evidence clearly reveals that the claim is false.
Even the law enforcement agencies do not want actual rape victims to fear possible criminal sanctions for reporting legitimate rapes if it later becomes impossible to prove the case. Hence, the false rape charge victims do not come forward to share their miseries and the torture that they undergo till their life time.
The outcome of a false rape charge is devastating to the life of an accused. No one can deny the fact that a rape accused has to face mental, economic, social torture. He receives a social boycott even if he is innocent and has not done anything wrong. But for the society he is a culprit till the time he is proven innocent.
State v. Vikash Kumar
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant and the prosecutrix came in touch in Jan. 2020 through Jeewansathi.com however, the family of the prosecutrix called off the alliance. Thereafter the applicant and the prosecutrix did not keep touch with one another.
In August, 2020, the prosecutrix contacted the applicant and a request of money was made for the treatment of her mother. It was submitted that the applicant helped her on humanitarian ground, and he extended financial help to the prosecutrix from time to time.
That the prosecutrix was aware of the fact that the applicant had been looking for a suitable match for him and eventually his marriage got fixed. Again in March 2022 the prosecutrix asked for monitory help from the applicant for her brother’s marriage and she also threatened the applicant of dire consequences if he would deny to marry her.
In April 2022, the applicant got married and after the marriage, the prosecutrix registered the instant FIR against the applicant out of vengeance. It was contended that the applicant and the prosecutrix never had sexual relations and the only purpose of lodging the FIR by the prosecutrix was to harass the applicant and to spoil his marital life.
Contentions of the Counsels
It was contended by the Counsel of the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix based on fabricated and concocted incidents.
That the applicant was in custody from 28.04.2022 and it was submitted by the counsel that as the investigation qua him is complete, no purpose would be served by further detention of the applicant. Further, it is submitted that the prosecutrix is a resident of Lucknow, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence by the applicant. Based on the said facts and circumstances the bail was sought by the applicant.
The Counsel for the State opposed the application of bail and he has contended that on the false promise of marriage, the applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix for more than three years and later on, solemnized marriage with some other girl. It was further submitted that the prosecutrix has also supported the contents of the FIR in the statement under Section 164 CrPC. It was submitted that as the offence is severe and hence the bail application must be rejected upfront.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that there is no doubt in the fact that over the period of time, the friendship between the applicant and the prosecutrix developed and that the applicant established physical relations with the prosecutrix during the period of three years. But it was also noted by the court that there was no specific date of incident has been mentioned either in the FIR or in the statement under Section 164 CrPC by the prosecutrix.
The Court took into consideration that the prosecutrix had repeatedly asked the applicant to marry her but he kept on evading the same. That despite the alleged evasion by the applicant, the prosecutrix chose to lodge the complaint against him on 27.04.2022. That there was a delay in lodging of the FIR however, there is no reason for the delay provided in the FIR.
The applicant is in custody from 28.04.2022 and the investigating officer stated that the charge sheet would be filed shortly. After a detailed analysis of the facts of the case, the court granted bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in like amount.
Conclusion
In the instant case, the court considered various factors while granting bail to the applicant i.e. that the FIR was filed in a delayed manner and no explanation for the same was recorded and hence it was an act of afterthought. The applicant and the prosecutrix were in touch and she filed a FIR only after his marriage. After considering all the relevant facts, the court granted bail to the applicant.
