Madurai: providing a benefit of doubts to a man who was punished and punished in cases of sexual violence, Madras High Court released him by observing that non-increased resistance for the first time the sexual attack reached pre-approval and therefore, the agreement given by the woman could not be held as misunderstanding of facts.
According to prosecution, the man (Petitioner) from Madurai Regency has carried out a sexual attack on the woman from the same village and broiled it.
Mahila Madurai Court in 2016 was punished and punished her 10-year imprisonment for violations below the IPC 376 (rape).
Justice R Pongiappan observed that the woman specifically stated before the court court that she fell in love with the applicant, and regularly met him.
The woman has filed a complaint about sexual violence almost two and a half months later, only when the man returned to his promise to marry her.
The judge observed that the situation revealed that the man promised to marry him after completing his brother’s marriage.
Only after this promise, the woman also continued her relationship with her.
It was not found anywhere in the evidence that the applicant had given a definite date or any timeline to marry him.
The judge observed that in the end when he was conceived, he insisted that marriage must be done immediately and that’s when the applicant suggested for abortion.
Because the proposal was not accepted by the woman and the applicant deactivated the promise, the case was registered.
Therefore, the judge observed that this court had doubts whether the woman approached the police with truth or with a false average.
‘There is no resistance during sexual attacks amounting to pre-agreement’
