NEW DELHI: The judges never issue a public statement to clarify any judgment except to clarify, if necessary, in the court and pull up the media for any misreporting. But, the office of a Delhi High Court judge has chosen to issue a denial of the media report that a man charged with rape and murder of a 65-year old woman was acquitted since the was rape not possible on crossing the age of menopause.
Even as buzz on the social media accentuated over the October 31 verdict of the Bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Mukta Gupta overturning the trial court’s judgment giving life term to one Achey Lal for the rape in inebriated state resulting in her death, a judge’s office said there was “wrong over-emphasis” on the word “menopause” which was not the factor for setting free the accused.
“The Bench never assumed that the victim could not have been raped as she had crossed age of menopause and even forced act on a woman of that age would not amount to rape. Word menopause has been mentioned in isolation and has not been cited as the reason behind the court’s ruling that the deceased was not raped. The judgment nowhere states that the accused is being let off because the court believes a woman who crossed menopause cannot be raped. This is absolutely a wrong interpretation,” an official said on behalf of the judge.
He said the verdict clearly states that the accused was being acquitted of murder charges as “he neither had any intention nor knowledge that such a forceful of sexual intercourse would cause her death.” He was let off rape charges as the Bench was convinced from the medical records submitted that the act was consensual after having alcohol.
Drawing a clear distinction between “forced” sexual intercourse and “forcible” one, the Bench said: “As regards the offence of rape, the deceased was 65-70 years, thus beyond the age of menopause. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for applicant that if the sexual intercourse was forceful, it was not forcible and contrary to the wishes and consent of the deceased.”
It added that evidence showed both man and the deceased had consumed alcohol and that there are injuries on the vaginal orifices but no other injury mark on the body of either to show that there was no protest by the deceased to believe that the intercourse was committed against the woman’s wishes or her consent.
