The first point of doubt for the bench of judges RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee was the version of the woman her age at the time of alleged sexual assault in 1995.
Although she claimed to be 13 years old, it was found that at the time of filing the FIR in 1999, a few days before the man married another woman, she was 25 years old according to medical opinion.
The complainant claimed that she had been silent for four years from the date of the sexual assault, as the man promised to marry her and their families had engaged them. She also said that they lived as “husband and wife” and that upon learning that he was marrying another woman, she had presented the FIR accusing him of rape and cheating.
The bank examined the evidence and found that the two belonged to different religions and that was the main restriction to solemnize the marriage: while the girl’s family wanted the wedding in a church, the boy’s family insisted on a temple ceremony .
In writing the sentence, Judge Sinha said: “The man belonged to the Programmed Tribe while the woman belonged to the Christian community. They professed different religious beliefs in a traditional society. They resided in the same town of Basjadi and knew each other. The nature and form of the accusations, along with the letters exchanged between them, make it clear that their love for each other grew and matured for a sufficient period of time.
“They were both in love with each other and the passions of youth dominated their minds and emotions. The physical relationships that followed were not isolated or sporadic in nature, but regular over the years. The woman had even left and resided in the man’s house. In our opinion, the four-year delay in filing the FIR, at an opportune time of seven days before the man solemnized his marriage to another girl, under the pretext of a promise to the prosecution, raises serious doubts about the truth and veracity of the allegations made by the complainant ”.
The bank further said: “She was aware of this (religious) obstacle the entire time, even as she continued to establish physical relationships with the man. If he had married her, she would not have brought the case. She denied having written him any letter, contrary to the evidence provided by the defense. The love language used by both in the letters exchanged reflects that the man was serious about the relationship … ”
“It is not possible to maintain, on the basis of the available evidence, that the man from the beginning had no intention of ever marrying her and that he had fraudulently misrepresented just to establish physical relationships with her.” The woman in her letters acknowledged that the man’s family was always very kind to her. “The court cleared the man of all charges.
.
