'With Heavy Heart,' Madras HC Directs Jail Labour For Rape Convict; Orders Equal Wage Split B/W Children From Wife & Victim

The Court further ordered that the wages earned by him be equally distributed between the child born through the victim (rape survivor) and another child born through his wife.

In its order, a bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the Court was compelled to grant this extraordinary relief "with a heavy heart," in an attempt to "wipe out the tears" of the victim and the innocent children affected by the crime.

"This Court feels that this is an extraordinary case, and the constitutional Court has power to mould the Law so as to serve the needs of time in order to secure social justice," the bench remarked as it emphasized that ensuring financial support for the children was a duty, which the father (convict-appellant) must fulfil.

In this regard, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Prithipal Singh v.State of Punjab and B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy, to note that when faced with unprecedented situations, courts are empowered to innovate and issue unconventional directions to meet the ends of justice.

“Mere conviction and sentence of imprisonment, in these circumstances, cannot serve justice in the eyes of the children. They have to grow up…” the Court observed.

“…therefore, considering this extraordinary situation that demands an extraordinary remedy, this Court with a heavy heart hereby directs the jail authority to extract labour from the appellant and his salary is to be disbursed equally to the child born through P.W.1 and the other child born through his wife,” the court further added.

The Court also directed the jail authority to send a periodical report of the disbursement of the amount to the children, every six months. The court granted liberty to the survivor to approach this Court, if there is any failure on the part of the appellant to pay the amount from the jail authorities.

For context, the bench was dealing with the appeal against the order and judgment passed by the Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Virudhunagar, convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.60,000/.

It was the case of the prosecution that 6 months prior to the date of complaint, i.e., on May 24, 2006, when the rape survivor was working in a factory, under the supervision of the appellant, he harassed her at the work place to have physical relationship with her.

He was accused of committing rape upon her against her will by making a promise to marry her. Due to this incident, she became pregnant, and the same was informed to the appellant, but he refused to marry her, which prompted the survivor to lodge a complaint.

Pursuant to his conviction, the appellant moved the HC, arguing that it was a clear case of consensual sex.

In its 25-page order dismissing the appeal, the court, however, found that there was a perceived coercion involved in the matter, wherein a situation was created where the victim had been subjected to pressure and compelled to have sex.

Considering the specific evidence of the victim, the Court noted that she was threatened that she would be inflicted with burn injury, hence, it added, the case of the appellant that there was voluntary consent was not acceptable.

The Court also factored in that only due to the economic duress and constant fear, she had succumbed to the accused and thus, her consent was not a voluntary one, but was obtained by coercion.

“This is the case of sexual coercion. Sexual coercion is when a person puts pressure and, threatens someone to have sex and hence, it can not be a voluntary consent. It is a settled principle that when the consent is under a threat, the case comes under one of the 7 Constituents mentioned in Section 375 of IPC,” the bench noted.

Importantly, the Court also observed that the appellant's actions not only violated the law but also betrayed the values of social justice he was expected to uphold.

The Court criticised the appellant for failing to protect and uplift a fellow villager, who was an economically and socially vulnerable woman. Instead, the Court noted, he left her in a state of helplessness and forced their child to grow up without a father and under the weight of social stigma.

Referring to Dr BR Ambedkar's words for the empowerment of marginalised communities, Justice Ramakrishnan remarked that the appellant, rather than fighting for the dignity of oppressed women, had added to their suffering.

It remarked:

“He belongs to scheduled caste. He should fight for the cause of the poor scheduled caste woman and always work for the upliftment of women who are both economically and socially weak as envisioned by the Hon'ble Dr.Ambedkar. He must act by keeping in his mind the following words of Hon'ble Dr.Ambedkar to uplift the scheduled caste poor woman: “My people are still sleeping, and that is why I am awake. So long as my people remain oppressed, I cannot rest. We must stand on our own feet and fight as best as we can for our rights. So carry on your agitation and organize your forces. Power and prestige will come to you through struggle”

Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the Court confirmed the conviction and passed the order of extraction of labour from him and for the distribution of wages equally among the children from the wife and the victim.