Madras High Court Orders Rape Convict’s Prison Wages Be Equally Split Between Child With Victim and Wife

In an extraordinary verdict, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently upheld the rape conviction of a factory foreman and directed jail authorities to extract labour from him in prison, with his wages to be split between two children — one born out of the sexual assault and the other from his lawful marriage.

The bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan confirmed the conviction of the 40-year-old appellant, Paraman, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Court dismissed his plea that the sexual act was consensual, finding that the alleged consent was obtained through coercion, threat, and a false promise of marriage — rendering it invalid under law.

The judgment emphasized the vulnerability of the victim, a woman from the same Scheduled Caste community, who worked under Paraman at Saradha Match Factory in Puliparapatti village, Virudhunagar District. The high court found that Paraman used his position of authority to harass and ultimately sexually exploit her. When she became pregnant and sought support, he refused to marry her, prompting her to lodge a complaint in 2006.

While the initial police action was limited to charges of cheating and harassment, the judicial process evolved to frame charges of rape based on the victim’s testimony and evidence. The trial court sentenced Paraman to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 60,000 in 2019. Against this decision, he moved the high court. 

Citing the victim’s credible and consistent testimony, Justice Ramakrishnan relied on several Supreme Court precedents to underline that coercion, abuse of position, and false promises vitiate any alleged consent. "Only due to the economic duress and consant fear she has succumbed to the accused and her consent is not a voluntary one, but has been obtained by coercion,” the court observed.

Further,noting the long-term impact of the crime on not just the victim but also the child born from it, the court ruled that both children — the one born from the rape and the one from Paraman’s wife — must receive equal financial support.

“Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary remedy,” the court noted, invoking landmark rulings from the apex court including Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) to justify this deviation from the norm.

“The duty of this court does not end with the dismissal of the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant...Mere conviction and sentence of imprisonment in the said circumstances can not meet the ends of justice in the eyes of the children,” the court stated.

Accordingly, with a "heavy heart", the high court directed the jail authorities to extract labour from the appellant and his salary is to be disbursed equally to the child born through the victim and his lawful wife. 

The court also directed the jail authorities to submit a compliance report every six months.

Case Title: Paraman vs State