CAN COMPROMISE BE A SOLUTION OF RAPE VICTIM?
INTRODUCTION
Rape is a sort of sexual assault in which a person is subjected to sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration without their consent. Physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as someone asleep, incapacitated, has an intellectual handicap, or is under the legal age of consent, are all possible methods of carrying out the act. The terms rape and sexual assault are occasionally used interchangeably.
COMPENSATION RULE
The final system has been declared, about a year after the Delhi government enacted the proposed Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2015, with higher compensation for victims of murder, sexual assault, acid assaults, and accidents. On December 23, 2016, the Home Department published a gazette notice. The new program has boosted the compensation for a variety of crimes, including rape, acid attack, and unnatural sex (see box). Male victims of unnatural sexual offences are being recognised. After writ petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court claiming that male child sexual assault victims were not entitled to compensation under the 2011 plan, the addition was made. A new provision for gang rape victims' compensation has been added.
This form of compounding or compromise in the cases is allowed under Section 320 of the CrPC. Compounding an offence entails reaching an agreement between the parties. In this case, the victim obtains some other form of remuneration or enjoyment (which does not have to be monetary) in exchange for not prosecuting the abuser. Section 320 divides offences into two categories: those that can be compounded without the approval of the court, and those that require the court's authorization for compromise. Rape is not included in any of the categories for which high courts can utilise their power to compound rape cases, as granted by section 482 of the CrPC. Superior courts frequently approve or offer compromises, lower penalties, or even acquit defendants.
Many incidents have been reported in which the courts utilised a compounding strategy to resolve rape cases and permitted the victim and accused to marry. There are, however, several more decisions in which an honorable court has criticised this approach and represented the proper legal position in this regard.
A Supreme Court bench invalidated a "rape lawsuit" based on a settlement between the accused and the survivor in Saju PR v. the State of Kerala, for "giving complete justice to the parties concerned.
In the case of Baldev Singh v. the State of Punjab, the trial court sentenced the rape suspect to ten years in prison. Given that the incident occurred 14 years ago and that the accused had already served around 3 1/2 years in prison, the accused and the complainant married (but not to each other) and struck an agreement. The apex court lowered the sentence to the time already served, citing the unusual circumstances of the case.
By accepting the appeal based on a settlement between the offender and the victim, the judgement of conviction cannot be thrown aside, nor can the convicts be absolved of the offences for which they are convicted, according to the bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
.
In the case of Shimbhu and Others v. the State of Haryana, a three-judge court held unequivocally that rape is a non-compoundable offence. It is a problem that affects the entire society, not just the victim. The crime of rape should not be abolished based on a compromise between the victim and the perpetrator, given that the victim's consent is not completely free in this situation, but is influenced by trauma or helplessness. The accused can also force the victim to marry him to have his case dismissed. As a result, courts should refrain from using their discretion based on a compromise between the rape victim and the accused. In the case of Ananda D.V. v. State & Anr., the Delhi high court voiced similar sentiments.
CONCLUSION
In rape situations, any compromise between the rape victim and the criminal jeopardises the woman's honour. Compromise should not be considered in the instance of rape or attempted rape because these are crimes against a woman's body, which is her temple.
A rapist is a man with the mental capacity to rape a woman. Rapists, in most cases, suffer from behavioral and physiological abnormalities. Because of their upbringing, they have been noted to have aggressive tendencies. As a result, it's extremely improbable that rapists will change their ways after the crime has been committed. These are cognitive tendencies that exist in nature.
There are exceptions, such as when the rapist confesses to the crime and marries the victim with good intentions as a display of remorse. This, however, cannot be utilised as a general assumption or set as a criterion for court decisions. Furthermore, even if the perpetrator repents, the law should not absolve him of responsibility when the offence is retributive in nature. One cannot avoid prosecution simply by expressing regret for his actions. This would allow all people who plead guilty in court and accept responsibility for their actions to be free of consequences. India plainly does not want to be in such a scenario, and it would be a grave injustice if such a decision were to be used as a precedent in future situations.
REFRENCES
ï‚·
https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2021/03/23/marry-your-rapist-anunending-saga-of-compromise-in-rape-cases/
ï‚·
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/07/sankari-compromise-rape-gendersensitization/
https://theprint.in/opinion/over-1100-rape-cases-ended-in-compromise-after-going-to