Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Atul Sreedharan, J.
Veekesh Kalawat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal No. 439 of 2023 (Gwalior);
Decided on 28.2.2023
Ms. Ankita Sharma for applicant;
Naval Gupta, Public Prosecutor for respondents.
Headnote:
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 363, 366A, 376 (2) (N) and 376 (2) (H) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- Ss. 5L/6 and 5 (J) (ii)/6 -- bail -- applicant allegedly kidnapped prosecutrix in 2018 -- in 2020, prosecutrix and applicant, along with their son, recovered by police -- prosecutrix testified before trial Court -- did not support case of prosecution -- denied even knowing applicant, much less having eloped with him -- absolved applicant of rape and denied that her child has been fathered by applicant -- DNA report identified applicant as biological father of child -- prosecutrix and infant living with parents of applicant and infant being cared for -- testimony of prosecutrix prima facie reveals that this may be a case of statutory rape rather than one of forceful rape, on account of prosecutrix being below age of consent when she eloped with applicant -- bail application allowed. 2023(2) JLJ 463 referred to. [Paras 3 to 6
(2) Rape -- distinction between ‘rape’ and ‘statutory rape’ -- rape is offence malum in se, a veritable evil and punishable in all civilised societies -- statutory rape is offence malum prohibitum which is otherwise not repugnant to human conscience, but which is proscribed by legislation taking contemporary social mores into consideration, which prescribe an age at which it is permissible for man and woman to indulge in consensual sex. [Para 11
(3) Legal Maxim -- “ignorantia juris neminem excusat” -- consensual sex by minor -- more than 51.5% of rural female population in Madhya Pradesh is illiterate -- it would be downright unjust to apply rule of law that ignorance of law is no excuse, without examining repercussions -- application of said rule for serious or grave offences which are malum in se has rational basis -- to apply law literally in cases of consensual sexual relations, outlawed only because legislation prescribes age for consent, where victim and accused have married and are living together as family with children, resulting in husband being sentenced for ten years or twenty years if wife was less than sixteen years at time of elopement, is travesty of justice. [Para 13
(4) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- Ss. 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 -- these provisions just and proper where offender is adult and de facto consent is absent -- however, its provisions do not distinguish between rape (as in without consent) and statutory rape (as with consent but punishable because victim is below eighteen years of age) -- in cases of statutory rape, POCSO Act has propensity of destroying families where victim, usually on cusp of majority, elopes with accused, gets married, has children and later, accused is put to trial and convicted and sentenced to minimum of ten years rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to twenty -- Law Commission requested to suggest amendment of POCSO Act. [Paras 20 & 21
(5) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- S. 43 -- public awareness about Act -- deliberate abstinence of State from discharging its obligations u/s. 43 -- non-compliance of mandatory requirement u/s. 43 adds to increasing number of POCSO cases in State -- directions issued to State -- failure to comply shall give Court liberty to hold Principal Secretary, Department of Public Relations, in contempt. [Paras 22 to 25
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] &&/kkjk 439 && naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 363] 366d] 376 ¼2½ ¼ढ½ rFkk 376 ¼2½ ¼t½ && ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 &&/kkjk 5B@6 rFkk 5 ¼´½ ¼2½@6 && tekur && vkosnd us 2018 esa vfHkdfFkrr% vfHk;ksD=h dk O;igj.k fd;k && 2020 esa vfHk;ksD=h vkSj vkosnd] muds iq= lfgr] iqfyl }kjk cjken && vfHk;ksD=h us fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k lk{; fn;k && vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dk leFkZu ugha fd;k && vkosnd ds lkFk iyk;u djuk rks nwj] mls tkuus rd ls bUdkj fd;k && vkosnd dks cykRlax ls eqDr fd;k rFkk blls bUdkj fd;k fd mldh larku dk firk vkosnd gS && Mh,u, izfrosnu esa vkosnd vfHk;ksD=h dh larku dk tSfod firk ik;k x;k && vfHk;ksD=h vkSj f'k'kq vkosnd ds ekrk&firk ds lkFk fuokljr rFkk f'k'kq dh ns[kHkky dh tk jgh && vfHk;ksD=h ds ifjlk{; ls izFken`"V~;k izdV fd ;g cyiwoZd fd, x, cykRlax ds ctk; dkuwuh cykRlax dk ekeyk gks ldrk gS D;ksafd vkosnd ds lkFk iyk;u djus ds le; vfHk;ksD=h lEefr dh o; ls de o; dh Fkh && tekur vkosnu eatwjA 2023 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 463 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 3 ls 6
¼2½ cykRlax && ^cykRlax* rFkk ^dkuwuh cykRlax* esa lqfHkUurk && cykRlax Lor% nks"kiw.kZ vijk/k gS] tks lHkh lH; lektksa esa vlafnX/k iki vkSj naMuh; gS && dkuwuh cykRlax fof/k fu"ks/k ds dkj.k nks"kiw.kZ vijk/k gS] tks vU;Fkk ekuo var'psruk ds fy, ?k`.kkLin ugha ijarq tks lelkef;d lkekftd vkpkj &fopkj/;ku esa j[krs gq,] ,slh fof/k }kjk vfHkfuf"k) gS ftlesa og o; fofgr dh xbZ gS tc iq#"k vkSj ukjh }kjk lEefr&tU laHkksx fd;k tkuk vuqKs; gSA ¼iSjk 11
¼3½ fof/kd lw= && ßfof/k dh vufHkKrk dksbZ izfrgsrq ugha gSß && vo;Ld }kjk lEefr&tU laHkksx &&e/; izns'k esa xzkeh.k efgykvksa dh tula[;k dk 51-5 izfr'kr ls vf/kd va'k fuj{kj gS && vizR;{k ifj.kkeksa dh iM+rky fd, fcuk fofèk dk ;g fu;e ykxw djuk loZFkk vU;k;iw.kZ gksxk fd fof/k dh vufHkKrk dksbZ izfrgsrq ugha && mDr fu;e ,sls vijk/kksa dk ykxw djus dk rdZlaxr vk/kkj gS tks Lor% nks"kiw.kZ gSa && lEefr&tU ySafxd laca/kksa ds ekeyksa esa] tks ek= blfy, voSèk gSa fd fo/kku esa lEefr ds fy, o; fofgr dh xbZ gS] fof/k dks ogk¡ v{kj'k% ykxw djuk U;k; dk migkl gS tgk¡ ihfM+r vkSj vfHk;qDr us fookg dj fy;k gS vkSj larkuksa lfgr dqVqac ds :i esa jg jgs gSa] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i] tgk¡ iyk;u ds le; iRuh lksyg o"kZ ls de dh Fkh] ifr nl o"kZ ;k chl o"kZ ds fy, naMkfn"V gks tkrk gSA ¼iSjk 13
¼4½ ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 &&/kkjk 4] 6] 8] 10 rFkk 12 && ;g mica/k ogk¡ _tq vkSj mfpr tgk¡ vijk/kh o;Ld gS rFkk okLrfod lEefr dk vHkko gS && rFkkfi] blds mica/kksa esa cykRlax ¼tSls lEefr ds fcuk½ rFkk dkuwuh cykRlax ¼tSls lEefr ls ijarq naMuh; D;ksafd ihfM+r vBkjg o"kZ ls de o; dh@dk gS½ esa lqHksn ugha fd;k x;k gS && dkuwuh cykRlax ds ekeyksa esa] iksDlks vf/kfu;e dh izo`fÙk ,sls ifjokjksa dks cckZn djus dh gS tgk¡ ihfM+rk] lkekU;r% o;Ldrk dh dxkj ij] vfHk;qDr ds lkFk iyk;u djrh gS] fookg djrh gS] fookg djrh gS] larkuksa dks tUe nsrh gS rFkk okn esa vfHk;qDr dk fopkj.k fd;k tkrk gS] mls fl)nks"k Bgjk;k tkrk gS vkSj U;wure nl o"kZ ds dfBu dkjkokl ls naMkfn"V fd;k tkrk gS] tks chl o"kZ rd gks ldrk gS && fof/k vk;ksx ls iksDlks vf/kfu;e ds la'kks/ku dk lq>ko nsus dk vuqjks/kA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21
¼5½ ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 && ß/kkjk 43 && vf/kfu;e ds ckjs esa yksd tkx#drk &&/kkjk 43 ds v/khu viuh ckè;rkvksa dk fuoZgu djus esa jkT; }kjk tkucw> dj ijgst &&/kkjk 43 ds v/khu vkKkid vis{kk ds vuuqikyu ls jkT; esa fujarj c<+us okys iksDlks izdj.kksa dh la[;k cढ+rh gS && jkT; dks funs'k tkjh && vuuqikyu ugha djus ij U;k;ky; izeq[k lfpo] tulaidZ foHkkx] dks voekuuk dk nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr dj ldsxkA ¼iSjk 22 ls 25
ORDER
1. This is the third application for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.161/2018, registered at Police Station- Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar, for offence punishable under sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(N), 376 (2)(H) of the IPC and section 5L/6, 5(J)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. The earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn.
2. The nature of this case compels this Court to give an elaborate order which otherwise may be uncalled for in a bail application.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant herein is alleged to have kidnapped the prosecutrix on 26.4.2018. The FIR is Crime No.161/2018, registered at Police Station Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar, for an offence punishable under section 363 of the IPC (punishment for kidnapping a person from lawful guardianship). Thereafter, on 10.9.2020, the prosecutrix and applicant along with a son born to them on 26.6.2020, were recovered by the police from the house of one Prabhulal Kalawat (presently the father-in-law of the prosecutrix). The applicant was arrested on 10.9.2020 and continues to languish in prison as an under trial.
4. The prosecutrix has testified before the Ld. trial Court on 18.1.2021 as PW1. She has been declared hostile as she did not support the case of the prosecution. She has denied even knowing the applicant much less having eloped with him. She has absolved the applicant of rape and has denied that her child has been fathered by the applicant. The Ld. co-ordinate bench while hearing the second application for bail, being M.Cr.C No. 40580/2021, allowed the application to be withdrawn vide order dated 29.9.21 without considering the same on merits. The Ld. co-ordinate bench however, fleetingly observed that the DNA report identified the applicant as the biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix. The first application for bail was summarily withdrawn by the applicant as is reflected in the order passed by the co-ordinate bench in M.Cr.C No. 8616/2021 dated 17.2.21.
5. During the hearing of this application, this Court learnt that a child was born to the prosecutrix and so, directed the State, vide order dated 9.2.23, to enquire into the whereabouts of the infant and to file a report of the investigating officer in that regard. The report of the IO/SHO shall be adverted to in detail in this judgement. At this juncture, it would suffice to say that the report revealed that the prosecutrix and the infant were living with the parents of the applicant and the infant was being cared for.
6. The Court testimony of the prosecutrix when considered prima facie, reveals that this may be a case of statutory rape rather than one of forceful rape on account of the prosecutrix being below the age of consent on the date on which she eloped with the applicant. Therefore, the application is allowed, and the applicant is enlarged on bail of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand only) personal bond with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court.
REQUEST TO THE HON'BLE LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA (WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO PARAGRAPH 21)
7. The oppressiveness of the POCSO in its application to the marginalised sections of the society reeling under the combined negative effects of illiteracy and poverty, is most pronounced in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This Court feels it necessary to bring it to the notice of the Hon'ble Law Commission of India, how the operation of the POCSO in certain cases is disrupting and devastating families in rural Madhya Pradesh by sending the sole bread winner in the family to jail for a minimum of ten years, at times leaving his wife and children to the vagaries of social exploitation if the parents and the in-laws of the prosecutrix/wife are not willing to keep her. Where the prosecutrix is unemployed as is mostly the case, the options for survival are dismal ranging from prostitution to crime. The State has no obligation under the POCSO to provide for the basic minimum required for surviva
