hear the news
Expansion
The Supreme Court said that a woman who was in a relationship with a man and was living with him voluntarily, cannot file a case of rape when the relationship sours. With this remark, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Ansar Mohammad, accused of rape, unnatural offenses and criminal intimidation.
A bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath said in its order that the complainant was voluntarily living with the appellant and was in a relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship has turned sour, it cannot be a ground for registering an FIR for the offense under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court which had refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The Rajasthan High Court had dismissed Ansar’s plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Thereafter, he moved the Supreme Court.
make a promise to him
The High Court had observed, it is an accepted position that the petitioner had entered into a relationship with the complainant on a promise to marry her and their relationship resulted in the birth of a child. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, we do not consider it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The top court, however, said, the complainant has admitted that she was in a relationship with the appellant for four years and was 21 years old when the relationship started. Keeping these factors in mind, the apex court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Remarks of order limited to anticipatory bail application only
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order were limited only for the purpose of deciding the anticipatory bail application and the observations made in the order would in any way affect the investigation.
Restraint required in exercise of extraordinary powers in hearing against judgments
The Supreme Court said, while hearing an appeal against a decision, the extraordinary powers conferred by it under Article 136 of the Constitution should be exercised with great restraint. So that justice is not killed. This includes the decisions of any court, tribunal, etc. of the country.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari made the remarks while dismissing the plea of murder convict Mekala Shivaiah. Shivaiya was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court and the High Court for the murder of a farmer on 6 September 2006 in Amravati’s vegetable market. Shivaiya challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. Justice Krishna Murari wrote in the order, “In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 136, interference can be given only when there is a mistake in the decisions of the first court.”
At the same time, care has to be taken that justice should not be killed by interference. Referring to previous judgments, the bench said, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to re-examine the evidence. We only see whether the decision of the lower court and the High Court is correct or not. This happens only in the rare and extremely exceptional cases where justice is scuttled in judgments due to wrong view or neglect of evidence. In such a situation, this court gets the evidence re-examined.
The bench said, “In these judgments the Constitutional plan has been mentioned in the right words and it has been made clear that the powers conferred under this article cannot be obstructed by any technical obstacle.” The bench also clarified that the Supreme Court does not function as a regular court of appeal in every criminal case.
,
