In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a Muslim man previously convicted of kidnapping and raping his minor Hindu girlfriend in 2008. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav ruled that the woman was an adult at the time and had willingly entered into marriage with the accused. The court noted that societal pressures had influenced her later accusations against him.
Voluntary Marriage Under Special Marriage Act
The court highlighted that the woman had voluntarily accompanied the appellant and married him under the Special Marriage Act. The marriage certificate was submitted as evidence. On the matter of the woman’s age, Justice Yadav indicated that with the margin of error, her age could be considered 18, making her legally able to marry and engage in a consensual relationship.
Societal Pressures and Interfaith Relationships
Justice Yadav’s ruling, delivered on May 11, lamented the societal divisions in India that hinder interfaith relationships. He remarked, “Fragmented, stratified and deeply divided Indian society across all the classes left no room practically for the young lovers to choose their partners. If the prescribed barriers are to be breached, the consequences have been so severe that they have had to pay with their lives at times.”
The court observed that the social resistance to the couple’s interfaith relationship led the woman, who had initially married and lived with the man for two months, to shift blame during the trial.
Case Background
The case dates back to 2004 when the couple eloped to the man’s hometown in West Bengal and married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The woman’s father subsequently filed a police complaint, alleging his daughter had been kidnapped. This led to the couple being brought back to Delhi, where the man was convicted of kidnapping and rape in 2008. He appealed the conviction in 2009.
High Court’s Findings on Age and Consent
The High Court scrutinized the evidence, noting that the woman had several opportunities to raise an alarm during her alleged kidnapping period. Her silence suggested she was a willing participant. The court rejected claims that she was a minor based on the ossification test, which indicated her age could range from 12 to 18 years, with a margin of error. Even if she were under 18, the court noted that she could not claim rape under Section 375 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it was interpreted in 2004, which excluded marital rape if the wife was over 15 years old.
The court also emphasized that the woman had stated her age as 18 in her recorded statement and medical examination. The judgment noted that her trial testimony appeared to be influenced by social or parental pressure, as certain inconsistencies arose during cross-examination.
The accused was represented by Advocates Samar Singh Kachwaha, Arsh Ranpal, Kavita Vinayak, and Yash Dadriwal, while Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha represented the State. Advocate Astha appeared for the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
