Date of judgement:
24th December 2021
Bench:
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
Parties:
Appellant – Kankipati Kalyan Babu Kalyan
Respondent – State of Andhra Pradesh
Subject
The accused were charged for rape by the Trial Court. The accused and the victim reached to a settlement and filed an appeal to set aside the conviction on basis of compromise, to which the Court did not agree and the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Provisions
- Section 376 IPC- punishment for rape
- Section 342 IPC- punishment for wrongful confinement
- Section 417 IPC- Punishment for cheating
- Section 420 IPC- delivery of property with dishonesty
- Section 109 IPC- punishment for offence of abetment
- Section 34 IPC- crime done more than one person with a common intention
Overview
- Appellant no. 1 was charged under section 376, 342, 417 and 420 of IPC. An appellant no 2 was charged u/s 109 r/w section 376 ad section 342 r/w 34 of IPC. They were convicted by the Session Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada.
- A joint memo was filed by appellant 1 and 2 and the respondent no. 2 (victim), stating that respondent no. 2 and the 2nd appellant were good friends while they were studying BeD. Moreover, respondent 2 and appellant 1 were in love with each other and wanted to marry. Because of some reason, the marriage did not take place and due to some misunderstanding, the respondent gave a report to police because of which the accused were punished. The elders and well-wishers from both the parties gathered in a meeting and decided to do a settlement and remove the feeling of hate from the minds of these three peopleso that they could continue to live peacefully in the locality. Respondent no. 2 and appellant no. 2 were close friends and hence the respondent decided to end the agony. There was no coercion or threat in filing the petition and the second respondent had no objection to allow the appeal filed by the accused for asking to compromise by setting aside the charges on them.
- The counsels from both the sides argued that the conviction should be set aside and the sentence order can be acquitted by making compromise. The counsel also argued that convict and victim were close friends and while studying together they fell in love. They were also going to get married but it couldn’t be materialized and because of this the case was filed. It was also argued that the offence u/s 376 IPC is purely personal in the circumstances and facts of the case and hence the charge on the accused can be set aside on basis of compromise.
Issue
- Whether the ongoing matter could be set aside on basis of compromise?
Judgment analysis
- The appeal made by both the counsels was rejected by the High Court.
- As the convicts were charged under section 376 IPC by the trial Court, so the question of sparing them on basis of compromise did not rise.
- The Court thus held that the submission of the learned counsel that the instant case was a case of love affair and there was also a promise to marry and hence the case could not be said to be a rape case and should be set aside on basis of compromise could not be accepted as the Trial Court had found the accused guilty.
- For the decision to be on the side of appellants, the Court said that there needed to be proper evidence stating that there was a love affair between them and also that the promise for marriage was made by them but due to certain conditions it was not fulfilled.
- The Court relied on the judgment of State of Madhya Pradesh v Madan Lal (2015), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a woman’s body is like a temple to her and offences like rape are against the body of the woman. Crimes like these suffocate the breath, question the reputation and self worth of the woman and hence there cannot be any type of compromise or settlement for this crime as it puts the honor of woman in question.
Conclusion
The court could not set aside the conviction of rape on basis of settlement as the matter was about dignity and honor of woman. Compromises are founded on patriarchal ideals of "honour," yet they do not contribute to the preservation of this "respect" in society. There have been cases of compulsion to enter into settlements, which may breach a victim's consent and have other negative consequences. Because rape is a non-compoundable crime committed against society, the legal footing of compromise is weak. In Shimbhu & Anr v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court also ruled that a sentence reduction based on a compromise cannot be granted. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, ignores the victim's pain as well as the laws surrounding compromise, generating the perception that the police and courts operate like "khap panchayats."
To reinforce the legislation against crime against women, gender sensitization and a greater knowledge and application of victim-friendly processes are required.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
