Setting a bold new precedent in such cases, the apex court has asked the lower courts not to entertain pleas of rapists to reduce the quantum of punishment when they agree to marry victims.
“Mindset of rapists, especially in instances where they foresee the court pronouncing strict punishment, is that everything will be fine if they make marriage proposal to the victim,” said Geetha of Jagori, a Delhi based NGO working for women’s rights. The Supreme Court judgement will only affect rape trials which began before the notification of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013. The Act has since removed the IPC provision which made it possible for the rape accused to use a marriage proposal to mitigate sentencing.
“There was nothing in the law which stopped the accused from proposing marriage to the rape victim. Hence, such applications were moved in courts. The result was that in many such cases, the criminal used to walk free, making a mockery of the criminal justice system,” said Delhi based lawyer Soumya Bhaumik.
Gram panchayats (village bodies) often ask the victim to marry her rapist in the hinterlands. Irrespective of whether the victim is ready to marry the person who violated her or not, her family views marriage as a desirable option to save their honour.
“‘Who will marry her?’ This question bogs down the family if the victim is unmarried. She becomes almost like an outcast, a burden on her family. Therefore, when the rapist comes forward to marry their daughter, most of the times they have no option but to accept it,” said Indu Agnihotri, director, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, Delhi.
In 2005, Imrana’s case drew national attention to the role of village elders acting as an alternative justice system. After she was raped by her father- in- law in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, a community panchayat declared her marriage null and void. She was asked to separate from her husband and marry her father- in- law. But with the support of women organisations, she went against the order and declared that she would remain with her husband. In a June 2005 press statement issued regarding Imrana’s case, women rights activists declared, “How can a system exist parallel to political and executive bodies constituted by the state, manned (they appear to be run exclusively by men) by persons who are ignorant and insensitive and whose judegments are irrational and inhuman? How can their authority supersede that of the state?”
But the courts too have often taken the same view. Lately, there have been many cases in which courts have reduced the quantum of punishment of the rapist when he proposed marriage to the victim or suggested marriage as an agreement which would work for both the parties. “Judiciary reflects the sentiments of the society,” said Agnihotri.
In January 2012, a Delhi court ruled that as punishment, the rape accused would give 100 blankets to street dwellers as he had offered to marry the victim. In 2011, Delhi High Court granted interim bail to the accused to get married to the victim. Same year, an army major, accused of rape, was acquitted after he married victim.
It is hard to find studies on success and longevity of such marriages. But counselor said that they caution the victim against marrying their rapist as such marriages can be marked by further violence. “This is not a love or arranged marriage. Escaping punishment is at the heart of the marriage proposal here. The man can make a lot of promises until he is acquitted. But who is going to check the well-being of the girl in subsequent years? What if he decides to part ways one month after marriage?” wonders Dorothy Kamal, a counselor with Delhi cased Centre for Social Research.
Now the Supreme Court judgement will at the very least remove the incentive for such expedient marriages that let rapists back on the streets. “Rapists will no more be able to look at it as an easy way out,” said Jagori activist Geetha.
