New Delhi: Contrary to some media reports which state that a man has been acquitted of rape charges simply because the woman had crossed the menopausal age, the actual judgement states more facts that have been ignored.
"The post-mortem report the death was due to a natural cause of action, thus the appellant cannot be convicted for causing the murder of the deceased Sharda and at best the appellant could have committed forceful intercourse but the same was not forcible and contrary to the wishes of the deceased. Hence he is entitled to be acquitted even for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC," the judgement states.
The judgement pertains to an accused Achey Lal in the 2010 rape and murder of a 65-year-old woman who has been acquitted by the Delhi High Court because it was not convinced of the proof and termed the intercourse as "forceful but not forcible".
"Achey Lal even if held guilty for causing the offence of Section 376 IPC cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC as he neither had any intention nor knowledge that such a forceful act of sexual intercourse would cause the death of the deceased. Consequently he is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC."
The judgement no where mention rape is not possible because she is past menopause. What it actually reads is that "As regards the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC the deceased was aged around 65-70 years, thus beyond the age of menopause. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the sexual intercourse was forceful it was not forcible and contrary to the wishes and consent of the deceased."
However, the basis for the judgment which could also be considered as bizarre is that since there were no signs of protest, there was no resistance from the deceased.
"From the MLC of Achey Lal and the post-mortem of the deceased it is evident that both Achey Lal and deceased had consumed alcohol. The forceful penetration is evident from the injuries on the vaginal orifices. However, besides the injuries on the vagina there is no other injury mark on the body of the deceased or on the appellant to show that there was any protest by the deceased. Hence we are of the opinion that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the deceased contrary to her wishes or her consent."
Here is the full text of the judgement
####
Comments
0 comment