A man who was arrested on the charges of raping a lady after making false promises of marriage has been released by the Delhi court. The court found that both the persons involved in physical relationship with mutual acceptance and hence, it termed their act under “youthful eagerness”.
Virender Bhatt, Additional Sessions Judge, has released Vikul Bakshi due to “contradictory and inconsistent” remarks made by the victim. According to him, the prosecution could not provide evidence against Bakshi.
As per the court, “It appears that the two, being in the prime of their youth, were having s*xual relations with each other in youthful eagerness and nothing else.”
The court added, “There is no evidence on record to suggest that the prosecutrix had given her consent to physical relations with the accused solely on the latter’s promise to marry her or that he was having knowledge that she consented to physical relations with him only on promise to marry her.”
According to the judge, the victim established a relationship with Vikul out of her own will without being influenced by an assurance or promise.
As per prosecution, the victim filed an FIR against Bakshi under IPC sections 506 for criminal intimidation and 376 for rape. She alleged that Bakshi made a false promise of marrying her and forcedly made relationship with her twice against her will. Not only this, he also warned her of defaming the victim if she compelled him to marry her.
Nevertheless, the court took into consideration the messages they both exchanged on social networking websites and maintained that it “clearly indicates that the prosecutrix herself was eager to have s*xual relation with the accused and she was not doing so on any promise of marriage with him.”
The court is of the opinion that the messages were not normal ones and the duo discussed it in a way which showed that such intimate acts would be enjoyable on the part of both and not only the accused.
“Hence these messages demonstrate that the prosecutrix was a consenting partner to physical relations with the accused and she herself had been eager to enjoy sex with him and the plan to have sexual encounter December 11, 2014 had been made well in advance and it was not spontaneous,” as maintained by the court.
What do you think? Was it the man who forced the woman to have a relationship or whatever happened included the will of both? Share your views in the comments section below.
