Al-Imran Khan
Rape is defined, in section 375 of the Penal Code 1860, as a form of physical penetration which is conducted against a woman’s will or without her consent or upon consent that is acquired forcefully. The Women and Children Repression Prevention Act 2000 has acknowledged this definition. Hence, consensual sexual relation cannot be termed rape. Recently an Indian court ruled that a woman cannot bring the charge of rape against a man for the physical relationship they had earlier with consent after they break up.
In our country, an actress recently brought rape charges against a cricketer. However, it would certainly be a tough job to prove the charge under the existing laws of the country. In the case of R vs Linekar, a court rejected a complaint, which said the man did not pay the woman the money he had committed before engaging in physical relation.
In a nutshell, if an adult male gets engaged with a female in a relationship knowingly, they are obliged to accept the consequences. However, it would be labelled as an offence only if the female is under-aged (minor) or anyone is cheated.
A mother of four children brought a rape complaint against a man before an Indian court alleging that he had assured of marrying her before getting engaged. But the court rejected the allegation.
Meanwhile, an Indian bench of Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice SK Singh expressed concern over the rising trend of women alleging rape centring break-ups and assurance of marriage. They also wanted to know whether such allegations can be termed rape through these questions: “Can moral transgressions like an extra-marital affair be equated to rape when the woman enters into the relationship with open eyes? Can breach of promise invite charge of rape?” In the order, the court said: “It is not Cupid but stupid...”
In the context of Bangladesh, it would not be termed rape if it is found that the actress had a consensual relationship with the cricketer; it would be an offence only if she had no consent for the sexual relationship.
In light of the 2003 case of Uday vs State of Karnataka, let us see whether the sexual relationship between the cricketer and the actress was consensual. On this matter, Justice BS Chauhan and Justice Dipak Misra in the 2013 case of Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana favoured the accused saying: “It usually happens in such cases, when two young persons are madly in love, that they promise each other several times that come what may, they will get married. As stated by the prosecutrix the appellant also made such a promise on more than one occasion. Under such circumstances the promise loses all significance, particularly when they are overcome with emotions and passion and find themselves in situations and circumstances where they, in a weak moment, succumb to the temptation of having sexual relationship.”
To simplify, the judges said when two persons are in love, on several occasions they promise to each other that they would get married. For this, the promise loses significance. It means if a man assures a woman of marrying her and they engage in sexual relationship knowingly, no complaint including of rape, from either side is accepted after they break up.
These court rulings, however, do not approve whatever people do in the name of affair; rather it is a warning for the females. But it should be noted that the issue of cheating can change the pace and direction of a case any time.
The writer is Assistant Judge of Bangladesh Judicial Service.
Source:
http://www.dhakatribune.com/juris/2015/jan/15/%E2%80%98it-not-cupid-stupid%E2%80%99#sthash.gPpErZTx.dpuf
