KARAN KAMAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The victim, (name withheld) a student of Class-VIII in the year of 2009 was pursuing her studies staying at her maternal grand mother's place perceived frequent visit of one Karan Kamal (petitioner) who developed passion as well as aspiration towards her and subsequently, allured her on account of which they both developed affection toward each other which continued for a year. In the year 2010 (in the month of October) Karan Kamal divulged that it looks difficult to stay away from her and seduced her to slip. However, she resisted stating that without marriage they should not indulge in such thing. However, on his persuasion that they will marry in a way, she accompanied him. During course of journey Karan Kamal put vermillion and said that they have now become spouse. They had gone to Delhi and enjoyed their marital live. Thereafter, they returned back to Kahalgaon and during course of their stay, she became pregnant.

(2.) One day, mother of Karan Kamal namely, Manju Devi came to her place and persuaded her to abort in the background of fact that the elder brother of Karan Kamal was not married and in the aforesaid background, against her wish and will, the abortion was effected by Karan Kamal in association with his mother. Thereafter, she perceived from their conduct that she has been deceived over which she insisted to have court marriage.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this case has been registered under Sections 376, 316, 504/34 of the IPC. but none of Sections whereunder case has been registered is applicable because of the fact that from the narration of the Fard-e-beyan itself, it is evident that the affair was not the game of one day rather both the parties have dwelled into the relationship for one year and then thereafter, whatever event visualized, that was consensual. Therefore, having indulgence in physical intimacy was not a rape rather it was a joint consenting effort of both of them enjoying orgies being erotic acknowledging themselves to be spouse and on account thereof, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. It has also been submitted that from the medical report as is evident from para-39 of the case diary the victim has been found more than 18 years on 04.06.2013. The age so ascertained is subject to variance of two years, that means to say, on the date of examination, she was of 20 years and deducing three years thereof, the victim is found 17 years in the year 2010 when she eloped with the petitioner and as she being above 16 years, her consent on that very score permitting indulgence in sexual activity would not attract Section 376 IPC.