MUMBAI: Observing that a 28-year-old woman with the mental age of a 5-year-old cannot give consent, a sessions court on Saturday convicted and sentenced her distant relative to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for raping and impregnating her in 2016.
The DNA recovered from the aborted foetus confirmed the 30-year-old accused as the father. The woman, who is already married with two children despite her mental deficiency, was living with her parents as her husband’s family had been harassing her.
While the accused claimed that the relationship was consensual, the survivor deposed in court and iterated that the accused attacked her in a public toilet in their vicinity. Citing the relevant IPC section, the court said, “Whoever commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability is guilty irrespective of her age. From the evidence adduced on record, the victim was suffering from mental disability and though she was a major her mental age was that of a 64-month-old. Therefore, her consent is no consent in the eyes of law...” the court said.
Public prosecutor Kalpana Hire cited the evidence of nine witnesses, including the survivor, her stepfather, medical officers and cops, to seek the conviction of the accused. The court also fined the accused Rs 40,000. If recovered, Rs 30,000 will have to be paid to the woman as compensation.
The woman had been living with her parents since December 2015. She was suffering from epilepsy and was seeking treatment under their care. The survivor’s stepfather, the complainant in the case, told cops that in August 2016, he noticed changes in the woman’s appearance and the manner in which she was walking. He said when he took the survivor into confidence, she told him about the rape and identified the accused as the perpetrator. She also alleged that the accused threatened to kill her and her daughter if she revealed about the incident to anyone.
The prosecution submitted that on August 16, 2016, when the survivor was unwell and taken to the hospital, the doctor disclosed that she was five months pregnant. It was then that an FIR was lodged and the accused arrested. When the survivor deposed in court, she said she had tried to raise an alarm when attacked but the accused had gagged her. The survivor denied she was having an affair with him or that she had filed a false case against the accused to avoid being defamed. Convicting the accused, the court said, “In view of the DNA report produced on record, the accused is concluded to be the biological father and the victim is concluded his biological mother. Therefore, there is oral, documentary and scientific evidence available on record to prove the charge levelled against the accused.”
(The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme Court directives on cases related to sexual assault)
