Supreme Court reinstates conviction in rape of minor and sets aside Calcutta High Court acquittal

The Supreme Court of India (SC) today (August 20) restored the conviction of a man who raped a minor girl. He was earlier acquitted by the Calcutta High Court (HC). In its verdict, the court had asked adolescent girls to “control their sexual urges,” ANI reported.

The Supreme Court took up the case for hearing on its own initiative today (August 20). In December last year, the Supreme Court criticised the verdict and termed some of the Supreme Court’s observations as “highly objectionable and totally unjustified”, according to a PTI report.

“Prima facie, these observations are in total violation of the rights of juveniles guaranteed to them under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution,” the Supreme Court observed.

“Judges are not expected to preach”

The Supreme Court, while considering a writ petition on its own behalf, took note of some observations made by a bench of the Calcutta High Court and said that judges are not expected to “preach” while delivering judgments.

In its ex officio verdict on December 8, the Supreme Court said that the high court’s findings violated the young girl’s “right to life” guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Besides the ex officio verdict, the West Bengal government had also filed an appeal against the Supreme Court’s October 18, 2023 verdict.

“Prima facie, these observations are in total violation of the rights of juveniles guaranteed to them under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution,” the Supreme Court observed.

At the subsequent hearing of the case on January 4, the Supreme Court observed that certain sections in the Supreme Court’s judgment were “problematic” and that it was “absolutely wrong” to write such judgments.

What Calcutta HC said

In its October ruling, the Supreme Court said adolescent girls should “control their sexual urges” because “if they indulge in the pleasure of sexual desire for barely two minutes, they are the losers in the eyes of society.”

In its verdict, the Higher Regional Court acquitted the man and stated that it was a case of “a non-exploitative, consensual sexual relationship between two consenting adolescents,” “whereby consent is irrelevant in view of the age of the victim.”

The Supreme Court had said that it is the duty of every adolescent woman to “protect her right to the integrity of her body; to safeguard her dignity and self-esteem; to strive for her overall development across gender barriers; to control her sexual urges as she is a loser in the eyes of society if she indulges in the pleasure of barely two minutes of sexual pleasure; to protect her right to autonomy over her body and her privacy”.

“It is the duty of a growing man to respect the above duties of a young girl or woman and he should train his mind to respect a woman, her self-esteem, dignity and privacy and her right to autonomy over her body,” the Supreme Court had said.

The court heard the appeal of the accused, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexual assault by a lower court. The higher court had acquitted the man.

The accused was convicted in September 2022 for offences under Sections 363 (abduction) and 366 (kidnapping, abduction or inducing a woman to forcible marriage) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Suo Moto Writ Petition initiated

The Supreme Court had stated that in the case of an appeal against the conviction, it only had to decide on the substance of the appeal and nothing else.

“But we find that the Supreme Court has discussed so many issues which were irrelevant. Prima facie, we are of the view that the judges are not expected to express their personal views while delivering the verdict in such an appeal. They are not expected to preach,” it said.

“As per the order of the Chief Justice of India, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been initiated on its own initiative mainly on the basis of the comprehensive observations/findings recorded by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the impugned judgment,” it said.

(With contributions from agencies)