The Jalpaiguri bench of the Calcutta High Court recently affirmed a crucial legal principle, emphasizing that even if a woman or girl willingly leaves her home to accompany an accused person, it does not grant the accused the right to commit rape. This significant ruling was delivered in the case of Hemanta Barman vs. State of West Bengal.
Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury made this observation while upholding the rape conviction of an individual charged with kidnapping and raping a girl in 2007.
The accused had argued that he did not kidnap the victim girl; instead, he claimed that she left her parents' house voluntarily to be with him.
However, the Court firmly stated that even if this version of events were true, it did not provide any justification for the accused to commit rape against the victim.
The Court stated, "If we go by the maiden statement of the complainant (victim's father), and if it is assumed that the victim was not abducted or kidnapped but left her house with the accused person on her own, that does not give the accused person the right to invade upon the privacy of the victim girl or to commit any penetrative sexual offence within the meaning of rape."
The Court took note of the victim girl's denial of the accused man's version of events. Consequently, it relied on the victim's statement to convict the accused of rape while acquitting him of the kidnapping charge.
The bench reasoned that when the evidence provided by the rape victim is trustworthy and inspires confidence, the Court can rely solely on it to convict the accused.
"In this case, nothing has emerged from the cross-examination of the victim to undermine her credibility. Therefore, there is no need for corroboration, as it would only compound the harm already suffered by the victim," the Court asserted.
This case traces back to 2007 when the victim's father lodged a complaint, alleging that Hemanta Barman, then 26 years old, had kidnapped his daughter, who was studying in the seventh grade at the time.
The accused vehemently denied the allegations and contended that he was in a consensual relationship with the victim. He further explained that they worked together, along with the victim's mother, for the same employer, and her father was unaware of their 'love relationship' as he resided elsewhere. According to him, the victim willingly left her home with him, and there was no element of kidnapping involved. His counsel argued that the incident should be considered 'an adventure of two individuals in love.'
On the other hand, the victim told the trial court that she had refused to accompany the accused and that he had forcibly taken her with him. The High Court observed that this statement by the victim was not challenged during cross-examination.
The judge also relied on the victim's testimony that the accused had confined her for three days and raped her. The victim had recounted that she raised an alarm while being raped, and the accused man's relatives questioned her about it the next day, leading her to disclose the rape.
Based on these statements, the High Court upheld the accused's conviction for rape.
However, the Court did reduce the jail term imposed on Barman from seven years to four years, considering that the incident occurred in 2007 and taking into account that he was the sole provider for his family.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Calcutta High Court woman's consent accused rape conviction Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury kidnapping victim's statement cross-examination accused's defense 2007 case reduced jail term.
