He said “young people who are financially independent, they often have free interaction. They drink together and sometimes also take sexual liberty and intercourse is consensual.”
He submitted that the victim must have lied due to fear of her father and “cooked-up a story of gangrape”.
Additional Public Prosecutor Arafan Sait submitted that the accused had prior intention of getting the victim to his house, as he had mentioned it in a WhatsApp message to other accused. He further submitted that it is a case of gang rape under Section 376D and the Section has been amended after Nirbhaya’s case to control such incidents.
Justice Bhatkar acknowledged that in the case of rape, difficulties faced by the victim have to be taken into account. She said: “ Considering the social norms and culture of the family, the victim might not have disclosed that she had drinks on that evening and therefore, she might have lied to that extent to her father to save herself but it does not mean at this stage that whatever she has stated is a complete lie. Prima facie considering her post-rape conduct and physical condition, it appears that she did not want to have sexual intercourse and if at all she had consented to it, the said consent was not valid.”
Although the court rejected the main accused’s bail application, it was held that there is no prima facie evidence against the other two accused, only a statement by the victim that the main accused had stated that others were also involved. Hence, bail was granted to the other two accused.
Written & Published in http://www.livelaw.in/